f13.net

If you take a look at Blizzard's job opening page ( http://www.blizzard.com/jobopp/ ), you'll see that the top 3 links are for a 'Lead Engine Programmer - Next-Gen MMO', 'Lead Tools Programmer – Next-Gen MMO', and 'Lead Technical Artist – Next-Gen MMO'.

Combine that with the fact they recently opened a support branch in Austin...

HMM. This may be unrelated to all the hubbub about the impending Starcraft 2 announcement.

Didn't Blizzard make an announcement some time ago that all their new titles would be subscription games?

Or was that something I picked up on one of my gin-soaked, late night wanderings through the WoW forums?

They are probably only bothering to release Starcraft 2 so that they can roll the success into World/Galaxy/Universe of Starcraft  :evil:.  God damn I would love a Sci-fi MMO that doesn't suck.

http://www.f13.net/index.php?itemid=167 (http://www.f13.net/index.php?itemid=167)
It was later denied.

In your defense, that is really the only to make those forums tolerable.

I find you achieve a similar effect when the stupidity overcomes your brain cells. Sure you still have to read the forums for a few seconds before the high-on-stupid kicks in and protects you, but it's cheaper than buying alchohol.

SC2 announced in SK at that event, Starcraft Galaxies to follow a few years down the line.

Whatever.  As long as they don't try to turn Diablo 3 into an MMO.

Diablo 3 will probably be an MMOG. Or at least a Guild Wars-esque one in any case.

And just because companies deny it doesn't mean they're right.

I'm not in the business of lying on the frontpage.

Don't think you lied.

:) That was for other people tuning into this thread.

It depends on who did the denying. I'm too lazy to look it up. Was it Blizzard denying Blizzard was going to do this or Vivendi denying it would be Vivendi/Sierra doing this?

And whether you were right or wrong doesn't mean you were lying. It's what you knew at the time :)

Blizzard denied it.

I still can't reveal the source, but I loled at the denial.

We all know, its not true until officially denied.

Pfffffffft, even when stuff is officially denied, about 50% of the time the denial is total bullshit.

Blizzard has a huge staff. They can more then likely be cranking away on multiple projects. They are secret and crafty, and more then likely the job listings were put on the site deliberately. I can tell you that right now.

If they were trying to get people to apply seriously, they'd hand-make calls, not put a job listing on their public website.

what does this have to do with making MMOs?!  heyooOOOOO!  lol, I'm so childish! 

I believe the story goes that Vivendi said they wanted every other Blizz franchise to become an MMO and Blizz denied such claims.

Which leads me back to my question.

Vivendi wanting all Blizzard franchises to be MMO does not necessarily imply Blizzard is the one to make them into MMOs. Now, to me, Blizzard not making those into MMOs themselves would be a big miss because "Blizzard" is as much a brand name as "Diablo" and "Starcraft" to gamers. Buuut, if Vivendi is serious about making this happen and Blizzard is serious about preventing it, I suspect we'd find out who really owns the franchises :)

Blizzard has a lot of say artistically. That's to say, they can be trusted to make the game. But in terms of business, har.

But making MMOGs out of Starcraft and Diablo are no brainers. I'd have done them before Warcraft as Warcraft 3 was their last game and the last thing we needed was more medieval bullshit.

And yes, signs are pointing to a Korean announcement for Starcraft 2, it only makes sense. But Starcraft Galaxies or wtfever and Diablo Online are guarantees, like death and taxes.

Should we infer from this that everything you say away from the frontpage is part of a cruel web of deception intended to bring about the downfall of everyone here and possibly the entire human race?

I think so.

If by 'lol'ed' you mean 'giggled hysterically while pointing at the very silly person' then I can buy that.


"Dear Blizzard, are you going to exceed the GDP of Bolivia or France when you release Starcraft Online?"

"We are not currently working on Starcraft Online"

*insert much hilarity and disbelief here*

So Vivendi is going to hire Turbine to make Diablo Online?  :roll:

And that's the only way to deliver an MMO? And that's the only type of MMO Diablo could be?

All I'm saying is that there's a lot more ways of looking at Vivendi making the announcement than the assumption that Blizzard development will shift to Diablo for the next four years and then Starcraft the next four beyond that. I have no more idea of how they are actually going to make all their franchises into MMOs than anyone else. I just think there's more questions than the answers some people use to support their assumptions.

Well, there's truth to that. We really have to begin to question what an MMO really is. My favourite example these days is CoH. When a game consists entirely of instanced mini-dungeons, in what sense is it really an MMO?

All I was reacting to was the notion that Vivendi would farm out Blizzard's IP to an inferior developer. And let's be honest - compared to Blizzard, everyone is an inferior MMO developer.

Blizzard will develop a Diablo/Starcraft MMO up until the point someone in the board room remembers their degree in economics and says "Hey, might this hurt the solid gold toilet producing MMO we have now?"  Thus, two years in, the project will die.

History always repeats itself.

Eh, I think Diablo would be too similar to WoW, at least in the basic "swords & sorcery" theme. With this, they would be cannibalizing themselves too much.

Starcraft, on the other hand, has the potential to be different enough in theme to bring in the sci-fi audience. And they could take the gameplay in a more action-oriented direction to make it even more different than WoW.

I think at this point, a Universe of Starcraft would be a no-brainer for them. I wouldn't see it releasing any sooner than three years from now anyway, at which point WoW would be old enough to be losing significant subscribers to the various latest & greatest MMO's that come out between now and then. A Starcraft MMO would hit just in time to bring the masses back into the Blizzard fold.

MMO-Wise Starcraft would be a reskinning of Warcraft.

Diablo would not... assuming they stick to what makes Diablo, Diablo. I.E. The ability, however small, to get the same ridiculous item from a foozle or a raid mob. As well as frenetic clicking instead of hotkey based skill-less "combat." That's not to say click click click click takes skill, but at least it doesn't pretend to be anything it isn't.

New box on the shelf that you can call "different game" > 2nd expansion of an old game.

Not necessarly. They could expand on what they did for SC: Ghost and make it an MMOFPS.

I would kill all of your pets for a good Starcraft MMOFPS.  But given the state of the genre (Planetside and Flying Tanks Online) I can't see the Blizzard suits going that way. 

A Blizzard made FPS. That's a good one.

That's what Blizzard's management said about doing an MMORPG.

Yes, but it's BELIEVABLE that Blizzard could make an MMORPG. They've shown nothing that proves they can make an FPS, let alone a farmed out failed action game that's nothing like an fps.

Hooray, another round of listening to Schild put Blizzard down for no fucking reason whatsoever.

What the hell? When did I put Blizzard down? I merely stated a fact. Starcraft Ghost was trash, so much so that they canned it and bought the dev team. And Diablo Online would rock. As such, they should stick to what they know.

Get your hand off the trigger there, partner.

And then someone else will remember the degree in marketing that everyone laughed at when he got it and say "hey, what about when IBM tried to protect their existing cash-cow product line of minicomputers against their own growth-star personal computer line and they lost billions for half a decade?"

A wise company is its own best competitor.  Or something else equally Tom Peters-ish.

henh?  do you forget what this board was like pre-WoW launch? ya, NOW it's believable, cause they did it.  Pre WoW-launch this board was flooded with folks saying things like "Blizzard has no experience making MMOs, and MMOs are HARD, they're gonna fall on their ass."  There was a minority of people saying that WoW would be a success.

Pre-WoW I would have to say that Blizzard would have an easier time making an FPS then a MMORPG.  The fact that they give different game types a try, and can them if they aren't happy says to me that if they decide to try FPS, anything the public sees would be successful to some degree (simply because they don't launch crap).

[edited for crappy sentence structure]

Indeed.

Endie's already put it very well, but to reiterate: better that Blizzard releases the WoW-killer than a competitor.

Besides, spending the revenue stream they have coming in right now isn't a bad idea. And the attraction of having players having not only multiple WoW accounts but multiple WoW and Starcraft Online accounts is just too attractive.

Nerf Protoss dark templars.

There is nothing more terrifying than the wizzomph...wizzomph.... and seeing little blurs around your base but being unable to do anything as they take your main structure out.

I did like templar drops, but they were tough to do.

Why nerf when you can just "balance"  Terran Dark Templars and Zerg Nukes OLOL.

I can't imagine how the Starcraft unit/race design would lend itself to being an MMO.  I doubt it's enough to prevent them butchering prior art to make more money hats.

Perma Death Zerg.  You come back as a drone again.  It'd be genius.

I strongly believe they will pull a Warcraft 3 prior to releasing a Stracraft MMO.

What I mean by that is, release Starcraft 2, and go balls out on the lore and backstory. Add even more with an expansion pack.

Once all that has been said and done, then use the new lore and data to flesh out an MMO.

I want to be able to choose zergling as my race and run around as a cloud of six all under my control.

Yea, cause the people at blizzard that wanted to make a FPS  all left to make one?? (http://www.hellgatelondon.com/)

I said it before, and I will say it again.

World of Starctaft plz now thx!

I thought it was so Roper could sit at his desk and eat the whole box of donuts himself.

Isn't someone already doing a Warhammer 40K MMO? THQ or somesuch? Is it possible that someone may actually beat Blizz at their own game?

Yeah, probably not.

"Dark Templar are cowards." - Heartcutter.

Word of Diablo would mark the end of my social and professional lives.  I would only venture out of my one-room, 6-PC hovel long enough to suck enough dick to pay next month's fee and dsl bill.  While botting. 
 
Considering how much better TBC is than vanilla WoW, and the much better (to me) ambiance of the Diablo universe, thinking about WoD on release day 2 5 12 years from now....umfumfumf.

I think you might be able to sell your plasma instead.

Cooldown is horrendous though.

I wonder if I could get them to come into my place and steal my platelets while playing.

Now there's a thought. As long as you can play just by moving your wrists while keeping your arms still you should be able to do it even with a needle stuck into each arm.

Yeah But I still say it is really stupid that Mytic is doing *ANOTHER* blizzard knock off with their Warhammer 40,000 crap. I mean. Come on. How many times can they clone Blizzard and get away with it? Have you Seen the Ultramarine model? It's JUST LIKE the Marine. How lame can you get?

Oh come on, for FPS knock-offs, There Can Be Only One (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Selection_%28computer_game%29).

Seriously, where the hell do you come up with this?  There's actually alot of skill and depth involved with combat in WoW (particularly for PvP) when it comes to effective use of your skills.  Using the right counter attacks, timing, waiting to blow cooldowns at the right point, and using the best chain for what ever particular situation your in are just some of the things you have to think about.  People who are good at this will easily destroy you if you suck at it, regardless of your gear.  Granted, its better for some class's than others, but its a gigantic step above the click click from Diablo (And I loved the Diablo games).  I dont know why you are constantly attacking the damn hotkey combat as skill-less.  It isnt.
Mythic isn't working on the 40k mmo, its THQ.

Like *that's* even remotely relevant.

You replied seriously to a post that suggested Blizzard is being ripped off by *anyone*. I think your trollfullness meter is on the blink, give it a shake and see if you get a better reading.



Now you aren't being fair to the poor chap. Stop fishing.

See, the thing is, I actually understood exactly what he was trolling at.  I just figured I would respond by correcting a mistake in his post to be snarky and derail away from the intended troll.

Oh the subtleties of message board posting!

Blizzard took something like 5 years and a boatload of money to develope WOW.  It's quite possible that the "What are you going to do next" team is looking that far into the future.

It would take a hell of a lot less time for them to make a Starcraft MMO since they can reuse so much of the WoW code.  They've got all the infrastructure down, that's the hardest/buggiest part.  They would need to reskin the world, make new items, and code up new races/classes/raids.

Who knows, maybe I was trolling the troll troller. I think I'm confused now.

As you say, this is a dangerous business.

The idea of an MMO Diablo seems to be redundant. I can't imagine why they would bother with all the overhead and headaches if they could simply just make Diablo 3 with multiplayer, like the previous two. What am I missing? What could they add to Diablo to make it MMOawesome?

There's always a chance they could be making an original IP... they are about due to make a new universe.

Do a Blizzard Station Pass. World of Warcraft + World of Starcraft subs for 20 dollars a month. It's a solid win for Blizzard -- you still have to buy the Starcraft box, but you can only play one at a time. And two MMORPGs is pretty much the most normal gamers are going to want to sub for at the same time.

If you make WoS different enough -- if you don't just do a reskin job on WoW (which I doubt they'd do), then you've got something people will be able to move back and forth from when they get bored with one.

If I was Blizzard, I'd be a bit torn -- I'd want to offer something different enough from WoW to stand out as an alternative to those who might be burnt out on WoW, but not too different -- you want current WoW players to feel it's worth the extra money to play both. On the other hand, I might want something radically different -- yank in yet another segment of non-MMORPG players.

Maybe something like a cross between an MMORPG and, say, Galactic Civilitations. Or a cross between an MMORPG and an FPS or RTS -- give it a totally different feel than WoW, so that the 4X players or the RTS players view it as "Hey, it's like what I like, only with a hell of a lot more players".

Given Blizzards track record an MMO announced now won't actually be released for a couple of years.

This is a four, or more, year gap between releases.  I don't see ANY cannibalization of the market in that.

edit: Also, the core of your argument is that there is a limited pool of MMO players that Blizzard can tap, that it has already been seriously over mined and that this is a zero-sum game where anyone elses gain must be WoW's loss.  I think that your entire premise there is flawed.

You are missing the fact that they want to charge you $15 a month instead of giving you free access to b.net for ever and ever.  The only way they can justify a monthly charge is by making it a full-fledged MMO.

Now that I think about it I wonder if the announcement will be an MMO instead of starcraft 2.  If I was making ludicrous amounts of money off of monthly fees why would I ever want to go back to selling a stand alone game?  Either that or they'll try to charge $5 a month for b.net...

I'm trying to think of how I would transition Diablo to a MMORPG. It'd be WoW with the loot-whoring turned up to max, the entire crafting game being personalized gem-crafting -- no Auction House, everything BoP.

PvE Combat would be entirely instanced, with multiple levels of difficulties -- max group size of five, with no real healer class. You'd have self-heals, but everyone would really be in hack-and-slash mode all the time. Combat and rewards would scale to group size, so solo-ability is easier. I'd thrown in top-end LFG tools, and easy replacement if someone has to drop out.

 PvP would be done with Arena style, with a combination of equipment + ladder rankings determining where and who you fight -- and it includes the shit in your pack, so no equipping crap just to gank newbies. If I was feeling really fucking crazy, I'd spawn instanced worlds that lasted for perhaps a month and had constant combat -- real deformable world. Let you fucking take it over, torch the enemy, that sort of thing. Give you shinies for winning, and shinies for sticking it out. Shinies for most kills, fewest deaths, most damage -- fucking make it worthwhile for everyone involved so you stuck out your tour of duty.

And I fucking wouldn't charge 15 bucks a month for it. Maybe 10, if I added some really feeling I'd added something. I'd bundle the sub fee with WoW for a huge discount so that WoW players wanting even MORE mindless hack and slash and loot whoring would swap over when they were bored with the complexities of WoW. :)

Wouldn't it be funny if Blizzard makes another "fantasy" MMO, and they end up keeping their WoW player base as is, AND getting another 10 million players to play the new MMO?

Yes, because stagnation is funny!

Oh yeah, stagnation, God forbid we don't make some sort of ground-breaking progress every second of our lives, and choose instead to just double the population with no change whatsoever.   There would be no meaning!  No achievement!  It'd be the end of the world!

I'm glad we agree.

Hey that would be like Mythic making another 3 sided game with "frontiers" and "battlegrounds" right? RIGHT!?!

C'mon.

Anyone care to guess at how long a person at X age is interested in playing a type Y game? How about whether the changing nature of "culture" affects the market forces toward or against a particular type of game? Simply put: Will the people who have been playing WoW all this time be interested in another, shinier, WoW now that they are a few years older?

I'd love a Starcraft MMO, as long as it's not designed for the lowest common denominator of player intelligence. It's an interesting IP.

Thank you. I've been making that point for years. People wish for a return to the old days when they don't realize they fucking outgrew them, or got older, or changed their preferences, wtf-ever it was. I laugh every time I see posts that boil down to change-h8 because a) MMOs are nothing if they are not constant change; and, b) people change all the time too.

I'd cheer if they'd do something more creative.  Sadly, it's easier to emulate and alter than it is to create.  Investors prefer safer bets as well.  

Lots of people who liked EQ1 play WOW, which is a better, shinier EQ.  Though WoW certainly fits better into the now-adult former EQ1 player's life than EQ1 itself would.  It will be interesting to see what MMOs are like when some are designed and marketed for retirees (20 years or so from now?).

Anecdotally, I played and still play the everloving fuck out of Civ 4, which is a better, shinier Civ 3 (which I played the everloving fuck out of), Alpha Centauri  (which I played the everloving fuck out of), Civ 2 (which I played the everloving fuck out of), and Civ1 (which I played the everloving fuck out of).  However, I also fear change.  The last time I signed up for radically innovative gameplay I got HAM, an experience from which I may never recover.  I may not be the norm on this one.

I think most people agree.  It's easier to enter into a system that's familiar rather than having to learn an entirely new system.  My biggest gripe right now is that every mmog out right now is so close to being the same that playing one over the other is like ordering a different flavor fo vanilla.  Granted, the VG version has some little bits of glass in it. 

I want to see more development houses branch out like Eve or ATitD.  I'm not sure why that strikes such a nerve with people.

This is a bit off topic, but I find it very interesting.

WOW is easy to play in small bites. It is a good fit for older players with less time. Yet the player base is generally considered to be very immature.

FFXI takes a huge time commitment. It is a good fit for high school kids with nothing else to do. Yet they player base is fairly mature overall.

Exactly the opposite of what you might guess in some ways.

That's because so many people play it.  People remember immature rude asses more than they remember polite well-mannered people.

Brain Age-Craft.

Hehe. Or Animal Crossing with a PC and Wii angle.

Not a cord for me, but branching out these types of games can ONLY be done by indies. That's fine, but they don't get the coverage and therefore not the players and therefore not the same level of VC investment and therefore not the same breadth of experiences. All of that is fine if you're not expecting millions and haven't staffed up for it. There's plenty of games to go around and plenty more than could come.

But it's important to realize the source. For example, the very last thing Blizzard would ever do, with all their cred and cash, is invent. Their stock-in-trade is to refine to a shine already-popularized conventions. And it's not their fault really. As a business unit of that size, they don't have much of a choice. And this puts them right in line with other studios capable of developing for mass-success. The best places for big outfits to put their energy is on polish and refinement of stuff others pushed out with sweat and tears. Invention can't be measured, so is the first thing to go in a process-oriented environment.

As a side note, I gotta say something about LoTRO vs WoW: I think it was Endie that called LoTRO "messy" compared to the on-rails experience that is WoW, and he liked it. Well shit, I love it. A lot of the things I remember as being more immersive from EQ1 are somewhat here again in LoTRO. It feels more "natural" if that's the right term. Things aren't laid out for pure linearity (except Old Forest which reminded me of gadawful Dungeon Runners of that Forest of Pirates of the Ca :nda:). Some might say it was because the dev team wasn't as good. Others might believe this messiness is on purpose. I'll always wonder.

With the ridiculous amount of money coming in to Blizzard, why *can't* they spend some of it on things the indies put out? I mean really, what's the operating overhead for ATitD? (I honestly have no clue, anyone have an idea?). I would't be suprised if it's ANNUAL overhead is maybe 10% of WoW's MONTHLY income. So, why couldn't Blizzard buy in as a kind of "silent partner" with ATitD, giving them the funds needed to turn a small indie project into a small commercial project?

Well first it's Vivendi's money to spend not Blizzard's and second with WoW they've shown that by spending the time and money they can get a payoff much greater than what was proportionally spent. E.g. for the sake of argument we'll say that they spent 3x what SOE did on EQ2 (it was less than that but it was more than 2X and I don't want to bother with fractional amounts). However, the number of subscribers they got in the first 6 months was over 20X what I'm estimating EQ2 had (2 million+ vs maybe 100K). So spend 3x money and get 20X the payoff? Sounds like a good investment to me.

Now comparing things to EQ2 isn't totally fair since EQ2 sucked so badly at the start but my point remains which is why should Vivendi invest say 50 million on 10 different smaller titles from various developers and get maybe a million subscribers total for all of them combined when they can put that 50 million into StarCraft Online and get a bazillion subscribers?

Because you don't get that big by a) inventing; and, b) thinking small. It's the plight of large companies everywhere that they HAVE to think big. This always means cutting off the smaller efforts, which invariably get scooped by smaller companies, which come with a new idea, which then becomes big, which then results in the big company BUYING the small idea so that it can continue to appear relevant and creative.

Blizzard hasn't so much to worry about because all things aside, they're still talented game developers. They identify a popular trend, project ahead a year or three, develop for what WILL be, and then rake in the cash. Not 100% of the time, but enough for people to think it's their stock in trade.

Blizzard research:

• Diablo 1 - randomized dungeon tiles+quests and character progression (spell drops). Sure the total game was based on the old dungeon crawls, but elements within it were somewhat newish twists on existing idea (but what isn't?  If you think anyone in the last 10 years has come up with something not based on something else you are fooling youselves)
• RPG with Thrall
• Ghost

Two of those three examples were scrapped.  In Ghost and the Thrall RPG they tried out existing IP in new gameplay, and were unhappy with the results so they canned them.  If that isn't research, what is?  What do you people want?  Does it have to be unpolished (and released) for it to have been considered "inventive".

I don't consider myself a Blizzard fanboy, but for fucks sake, Ghost + ThallRPG says "YES, they try new (for them) things".  Maybe what you're really bitching about is that they won't release games unless they feel that the game has mass-market appeal.  They don't do niche.  Ok, then if you are looking for a niche game, don't look to Blizzard to deliver it.

In my opinion there is a need for both mainstream and niche players.  The niche players stretch the boundaries from the outside, but the mainstream team stretch the boundaries from within.  What the hell does that mean?  It means that the niche players come up with new types of gameplay and deliver them in games that largely aren't player-friendly.  Niche players play these games for the newness, often times despite the host of issues these games bring along with them (I play these games, and I enjoy the innovation).  The mainstream games companies often incorporate the more popular elements that surface in niche games that work, incorporating them into more polished "tried and true" interfaces and conventions (I play these games and enjoy the total expereince).  It can be argued that integrating newer features into a more established type of game is a type of innovation.

Blizzard has delivered this type of innovation with WoW that I'm very happy about - they released a content-rich MMO that was polished, major-bug free at launch and not filled with soul-crushing tedium from day one and that as much as anything was a large part of why they have a gazillion customers.  All five of those elements are parts of the innovation:

• content rich
• polished
• no fun crushing bugs at launch
• no soul crushing gameplay
• money hats

Showing the suits at other companies that there are great rewards to be gained if you release a fun game that isn't broken - big innovation.  Showing designers that you don't have to have an eye-stabbing "Vision" to attract and keep customers - big innovation.

Katamari Damacy?  I mean, I know that someone is going to claim that it was just the latest iteration in the genre of rolling up garbage and cows and mountains in order to rebuld constellations for yourfather the King of all Cosmos, but I thought it was pretty innovative.  I could probably name a few more, too, but that's the clearest cut I can think of offhand.

Flow, Rez/Guitar Hero, Elecktroplankton, Nintendogs, Trauma Center, Hotel Dusk etc etc etc.

Most games borrow either from other games or life itself, but few do it well. 

The biggest thing for me about the games of the past 10 years have shown that innovation is hard; polish appears to be next to impossible.  Blizzard has shown that you don't need to innovate to make people happy; people are more than happy with old idea's done well. 

I'll just state the obvious.

1) WoW released by any other design house would have had significantly less success.  Blizzard carried this title with great marketing and brand recognition.  I'd say that has easily as much to do with the success of WoW as does the polish.  If SoE had released the EXACT SAME GAME, we'd be looking at 500k subs or so.

2) If you really feel there's no "soul crushing gameplay" then this is either your first MMO or you're blind to the grind after level 40 or so.  

The rest I'll agree with.

How do you have Wow without Blizzard? They created the warcraft universe. SOE has fucked up THE richest IP in history. Dont give me that shit, I don't wanna sound like a fanboy (hell i quit 2 weeks into BC) but the reason it was successful has been went over many times. Extended beta. Long production time. Compatable with old machines. Is fun.

Name one of these things SOE EVER did with their cash cow IP.

When you say "biggest IP", I assume you're talking about SW. The EQ brand was not really that relevant outside of the then-niche MMO genre, and the extensions they tried (cellphone, CRPG, etc) didn't work well enough for them to continue pushing out such brand extensions, as evidenced by their lack of having done so recently. The lore of the EQ IP is just not as compelling because it's roots were within MMO and tied to the company everyone loves to hate.

Meanwhile, the Warcraft IP came from the much older RTS genre work and people by and large like Blizzard, at least for their game development skills.

Until the endgame. And given the number of people that have reached that last level, there's a lot of peope who've encountered it.

And without repeating it again, the important element is that Blizzard/Vivendi has a LOT of fundamental competitive advantages which, in aggregate, are what almost nobody else has at all. Which requires they change the rules.

I think he's referring to the Star Wars IP.

All I'm saying is that WoW is solid but its gameplay alone doesn't merit the huge increase in subs over every other MMO to date.  It was a beautifully orchestrated symphony of linear gameplay, interesting art, accessibility, and outstanding marketing.  It was a great vehicle for drawing console players into mmogs.  As a game free from its branding, it's really just a hyper polished version of everything we've all seen in the past 6+ years.  Does that have value? Yes.  Does the gameplay alone merit the huge increase in subs worldwide? I'd say No.

As an aside, I personally think that the current iteration of EQ2 is a much richer and engaging game as far as mmo's go.  An obvious sign that my tastes tend to be quite different from that of the mainstream. 

I'm sorry, it just seems smart for a big company to add small but creative titles to their stable. It could be a platform ($elf-$ustaining, btw) to try out the new idea's they can then move to their main titles. Put all the games under a "Game Pack" subscription so you can play any of the games for one monthly fee, and lot's of people might poke into multiple games. Imagine WoW, Eve ONline, ATiTD and Sim's all under one umbrella.

If SOE had released a SW-skinned WoW I doubt it would have had the same success, at least initially. One of the things holding back that IP is that it's genesis is the movies. There are a lot of people who saw and maybe even loved the movie that are not at all interested in computer games. But WoW's origins are computer games.... so by default *everyone* who loves the Warcraft IP plays computer games. The Star Wars IP was never going to be, *could* never be as big as Warcraft. And that's part of what screwed up the game. The suits didn't like that and pushed too hard. IMHO.

Negatory.  SW license+MMOFPS=pure solid gold toilet money hat love.  As I've said before (and I don't want to say now, because it would involve bringing up the MMO Expansion That Must Not Be Named), the game design just came at a particularly unfortunate moment in time.  If a KOTOR MMO is coming up the pipe, they'll have enough sense to make everyone Jedi and lose the Wookiee hairdresser crap. 

Blind to the grind, I guess.  In comparison to EQ it's a walk in the park on a sunshiny spring day.  Because in EQ the grind started at level 6 (unless you twinked yourself... then it started at level 18).

typed the following in a fit of self-absorbtion, feel free to skip cause the main point is above

Played UO from launch for two months.  Lag infuriated me so much I quit and never returned.  It was literly impossible to get anything done and my wife was very unhappy with how pissed off it was making me.  Looking at WUA's posts I'd say I probably should have been alittle more patient... on the other hand, fuck that, how many free months of unplayable game was I supposed to put with?  Fuck them and their laggy little sandbox.  I'm still bitter!

Played EQ (from launch) for 1.5 years.  I still remember the original death penalty, and I still get annoyed.  This game, more then any other, defines "player-hating, punishing gameplay" for me.  I know I should have fond memories, but all I remember is how absurd it was that a game could be built with the understanding that the player would die as a normal course of gameplay, yet the penalties for dying were so extreme.  I suspect that you had to be Catholic to really like this game.

DAOC (from launch) seemed like a breath of fresh air in comparison to EQ (even with the boring leveling!).  Got hooked on RvR, got unhooked after Trials went live... which is a shame, because I really like driving a boat around and I really liked the way they did underwater.

CoH.  Great game.  Leveling curve + character progression that is just outright stupid.  Not just grindy, fucking stupid.

WoW.  Got a druid to level 60.  Played two weeks after that and quit.  Came back 9 months (? maybe less, maybe more) later and tooled around with a mage (60), warrior (60), rogue (52) and warlock (60).  BC came out, leveled my druid to 70, tooled around with alts, quit.  Don't know if I'll ever be back, feel like I got my money's worth and more from the game, so I'm happy.  Only when I was leveling the druid in the 50s (mostly solo cause guys I played with had dropped out) did I feel a grind.

I think this is a decent business model.  I think there are companies that should try this.  It seems like it should give internal teams a leg up on incorporating/iterating innovative gameplay into established games (internal experience/IP/etc).  I think NCSoft is trying something like this, especially with games like Dungeon Runner where it's understood that the game isn't an A-list, and it's priced accordingly.  Unfortunately it also may be part of what is generating noise about how NCSoft releases crap games (some of the games being crappy doesn't help either, I'd say).

I think that Blizzards mystique (that every Blizzard game is a hit) doesn't lend itself to this type of business plan.  To some extent I agree with Nebu that WoW released by anyone but Blizzard wouldn't have been as big - because of the mystique and the rabid fanboys the mystique generates (and the word of mouth that the rabid fanboys generate).  That being the case, why on earth would they want to screw with that built-in success?  It's a tremendous brand to have, they worked hard to get it, they shouldn't water it down.  I think at this point they have a responsibility to the employees and the shareholders (no I don't own stock) to not throw intangible but extremely valueable assets like their brand away for something as hollow as street credibility for being innovative.

There’s a lot of solid reasons why this doesn’t happen though. The main one I think is relevant to this discussion is that big companies find it very hard to think in small terms. It’s a combination of overhead, amount of people, corporate-think, politics and a dozen other things that I had listed in a long post I didn’t think anyone would want to read anyway :) Basically, if you’ve ever worked at a 700+ person company doing a bunch of different things, you’ve experience the group mindset that makes it hard to think and act like an indie. And you’ve worked with people who, given the chance, absolutely love going rogue at the behest of, and with the direct support of, upper management.

This is why so much output from large companies is beautiful graphics and updated statistics field. Game development is relatively easy to measure. There’s lots of processes to use and methods to measure them. Game design though, particularly if it involves true invention, is by comparison nigh impossible to measure. You don’t know how long it’ll take nor what it’s impact to bottom line will be. And all of this measuring is generally done by process-focused people who balance price, investment, politics and quality of experience. Some think these people don’t care about quality. They sure as heck do because bad quality doens’t move and therefore infects profitability. It’s just that they assume the dev staff is working towards quality, so they let them have at it.

Small companies invent. Large companies buy them so they can be seen as inventive :)

First off, my noob hat is firmly on and urges me to ask: Does Vivendi (Blizzard) really have 700+ employee's?

Second, you are right, of course. The larger the group, the harder it is to do anything but bigger and bigger strokes. But that doesn't mean that Vivendi can't make a small office of whatever the appropriate # Dev's to run an Eve. And another to run an ATitD. etc... Isn't this already being done? Maybe it's as simple as asking why Blizzard hasn't bought out Eve yet. Why not? It's profitable already, so it won't drain the coffers, and there is some interesting stuff there (space!) that might be useful in one of Blizzard's existing or upcoming games. No need to even change the names.

I too look forward to one day someone doing up a deep and complicated sci-fi space sim.

Just as far as Blizzard goes (not parent Vivendi) their CS and QA staff beat 700+ alone.

Think about the game they already manage vs Eve. In my mind they are night and day, requiring completely different Live teams in almost every competency, from art to economic to GMs. And consider the policies CCP has vs Blizzard. And how the latter is highly dependent on IP at this point. Heck, even the entire server architecture and all associated content delivery pipelines are different. And finally, calculate how much actual revenue Eve generates vs that of WoW.

Oh the numbers side, Blizzard by itself is big enough. Last I read they had 1,500 people just on customer support alone. But I also consider them for the mere division of Vivendi that they are. Vivendi is serious big :)

Putting out small, ok games would probably dilute their brand. If they were going to do it they would do it under a subsidiary, the way Disney has Beuno Vista or whatever it is called. But then without the brand recognition the games probably wouldn't sell too well.

I just want someone to make a nice sandbox MMO, because I've found I have less tolerance for the alternative than anyone else I know of.  Like I know WoW is supposed to be the game with the easy leveling, but I found my soul thoroughly pounded to dust and ready to quit by level 50.  Whenever I hear about someone with multiple max-level characters, I'm boggled as to how they can possibly stand it.  I need to be able to define my own goals, and spend a two-hour play period doing 4 different things for 30 minutes each, or else I feel the grind.

I want to chime in for a second on why big companies value development (graphics and etc) so far above design (new ideas).

It's actually very simple and any business major can do a better job of explaining it than I can but the reality is that ideas are free.  What this means in the real world is that ideas have no value.  Any 2 post newb on this board can pipe up with a couple of hundred ideas in the space of an afternoon about what would make a great MMO.

You can put an exact dollar figure on what adding bump-mapping and lens flare to your game means in terms of cost and risk and time though.

Very true.  I have my pathetic salary as a researcher to prove it.

I was under the assumption that lead designers get paid pretty well.

Obviously, it's not just coming up with a design doc.  It's dealign with the ebb and flow of design, constantly making decisions based on resources and problems that arise.  But in the end, they are still basically getting paid, and often highly rewarded as the 'rockstars' of gaming, basically just for their ideas.

The only coder geek that anyone knows about is Carmack.  Every other well known figure in gaming is a designer that I can think of.  Miyamato's or Wright's ideas have much much more value than your bump-mapping coder.  One reason is that these ideas are generally well grounded and executable.  They can filter their vision into reality, something the average person cannot do.  The other thing about them is they obviously can deal with the decisions during the game making process extremely well, and this takes experience.  Again, it's just ideas about how to proceed.  But they are certainly the most important person on the staff.

First, I never said there were NO new ideas introduced or that the few capable of doing it consistantly weren't well recognized.  Secondly, those guys positions would fall mostly into the realm of Project Manager in any other branch of engineering.  I don't think major game design is what you think it is.  If you actually look at 98% of what those guys produce today, it's the same thing they produced yesterday with evolutionary changes.

I won't argue the point with you about the value of ideas though, there have been threads here before and as I said there are plenty of business types who can explain it in real detail with more than just anecdotal evidence.  If you don't think it's true just try and get someone to pay you for an idea.

Lead Designer does not mean leading a team of people in a groupthink circle jerk of invention. It means defining the idea and leading the execution. This is mostly a long series of micro-designs of the features that, in aggregate, flesh out the system over time. And all of that is measured by the stuff that goes into developing it.

Ideas alone are not valuable. Everyone's got them. Ideas with the ability to execute is what matters. And this means gaining the confidence of VC/management, usually most easily done through precedent, and populated by people who wouldn't be able to distinguish between the quality of ideas but know sure as shit how to measure the quality of execution.

This is one main reason why so many people in these industries started at a technical level, even those luminaries and icons who now, after years of experience and success, could sit in a room and invent all day. But don't.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=163207

Computer and Videogames says, on good sources, that the next Blizzard announcement is Starcraft: MMO.

Please let it have space combat.

Look. I hate to say it. But Gamespot ALREADY confirmed WITH Blizzard that they had no plans for other MMOGs.

I mean, really.

Comeon.

So maybe now I'm right and it's Vivendi but not necessarily Blizzard? Or did you forget to format that for green? ;)

Also:

6? No way they lost almost 3mil in the time since LoTRO launched, so is CVG just quoting from some piece of paper they found when cleaning out the basement?

CVG is just being speculative. They're an obsolete magazine. They need to get their kicks where they can. Right or not, they're just going on educated guesses me thinks.

So I'm guessing I should maybe try to show up for this Blizzard announcement thingy in a couple weeks?

Since I'm here and all....

SC:MMO makes no sense, it will compete with WoW in fuzzle-bashing market.

Starcraft MMO makes fine sense. Some people just don't like elves.

I just don't feel they should have reskinned WoW so fast. Yes, having both on the market would likely make Blizzard/VUG bigger than EA just on account of those 2 games. And the money might go on to fund some amazing things. But it still irks me that they didn't go with Diablo Online first, if only for the gameplay changes.

Largely irrelevant though since all 3 will eventually share space in the market.

Who's to say that they will just reskin WoW?  Theres really no point.  I'm betting they will actually make a fairly different type of game if they do go for a SC: MMO.  Blizzard does try to add originality with the new iterations of their games (They were trying to really create something new with the total RTS/RPG hybrid for Warcraft 3, but looked at what they developed and decided it wasn't fun, scrapped it, and redid it with a more RTS focus.  They still were pretty original with the RPG concepts they added into Warcraft 3).  Since they will be sharing market space, and they already are doing the more traditional type of MMO with WoW, I'm betting it will be fairly different type of gameplay, if they do go the SC route.  Which I actually hope so, because it would be nice to see what a well funded and actually competent game development house could do trying to make a nonstandard MMO.

I think they are doing an MMO.  I think it's SC.  I think it's not a WoW-style RGP, although I think the player will have an avatar (for player retention).  I'm not aware of a successful MMO RTS, or even something that smells like it could have been success.  Given what Blizzard has produced/tried to produce, I think they think that the pure-RTS days have passed.  I think WoWs success has cemented that viewpoint within Blizzard.

There have been some (arguably) successful/near-miss MMO FPS games (Pl anteside).  Blizzard has some technical FPS experience/code base with the Ghost exercise.  The SC IP lends itself to FPS.  I think that massive-scale FPS matches are still too technically challenging to be done satisfactorily, and I think that Blizzard also likes that instanced combat makes for even matches.  So we're talking squad-level FPS done with voice-comm and RTS-style controls for the squad leader, facing off against PvE and PvP enemies.  May as well add in some RTS-style map objectives (defense, offense, resource gathering, retreat to other side of map, etc) to provide for variation in gameplay.  RTS elements also allow an instance

Oddly, I think the IP is also a drawback here.  Three incompatible sides (4, if you consider Kerigan a side) locked in a genocide-bent death struggle.  To create a "static slice of time"-style MMO RPG is not going to be very satisfying to anyone.  At the same time, I don't think letting the outcome of the player battles decide the progression of the IP for you is a good idea.  The only thing I can think to do is have the Zerg/Kerigan be perceived as the common enemy (read: NPC) and downgrade the war between the Protoss and the Human factions to a boarder struggle (PvPvE).  This seems to make sense from a player perspective as well - 1) how much avatar buy-in can you build with a bug, 2) much of the Zerg forces are melee-style, which doesn't fit well with a FPS game, 3) how would you model the UI with burrowing?

PC factions are therefore Protoss and Human, battles fought between Protoss/Human can have mid-term consequences (taking/losing planets, asteroid belts, etc).  Use the Zerg to be the spoiler - a PC faction must balance between figthing the opposing PC faction, and containing the Zerg, focusing too much on the former will cause a loss of ground on the latter (and vice-versa).

... but I'm a wild-eyed optimist

That seems like a decent plan Typhon but if they make a Starcraft MMO and don't let me play the zerg then I am going to be serious pissed off. Grr. :)

Couldn't they just use the LOTRO feature where you get to play the mob?

They are simply not capable of anything better. Just look at WoW - its DECADES behind of anything on the market ideas-wise, even in PvE segment. Can you believe they still don't have player housing or non-raiding endgame?

Yes, I can.  Player Housing needs to serve some sort of gameplay utility to justify what I imagine is an increased amount of database space to hold all the information that can occur with player housing.  Plus, the world's static, and static worlds typically do not feature player housing.  FFXI does good player housing, but that's because it is all instanced, and already includes some functions that WoW does, like banking.  They still have some innovative things like how the furniture affects your character and gardening that also sets them apart, but designing such systems into WoW would feel copycat at best, and would need something unique that is all WoW's own.

Plus, I like how inns are the mainstay for an adventurer's "home", just like any wandering hero type such as the characters you play in WoW.

Non-raiding endgame? Uh...PvP?  Battlegrounds? Arenas?

DAOC put what I thought was pretty decent player housing into their game... which didn't keep players from leaving in droves when Mythic changed the game in a way that disrupted PvP by forcing PvE (Trials of Atlantis).  A metric ass ton of people are playing WoW, which does not have housing.  CoX put in super group bases (guild housing) and it scored very low with players when compared with the ability to customize characters or combat (especially given the amount of effort the CoX team put into housing)

This indicates to me that housing is not a game feature that many people consider "core".  It's nice if it's there, but not a deal breaker if it's not.  My take is that Blizzard made a good value judgement on what their playerbase wants in a game.

Not to say I'm completely insensitive to your desire to have housing.  I won't be totally happy with an MMO game until it has Oni-style combat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oni_(computer_game) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oni_(computer_game))), but I think I can see clear to the viewpoint that games without Oni-style combat do not de facto suck.

As an aside: housing requires more than just grinding components. You need a reason to have them at all, which includes a lot of features WoW just doesn't have. What's housing without player vendors without something worth selling beyond drops which means a crafting game that matters? And you forgot the other endgame of PvP.

Back on topic: Consider the current market for Starcraft, and the type of game it is, and how long that market has been over where this announcement will be made, and the sort of breadth of experiences that originate from that territory. Then compare to what is the "obvious" method for doing a Western-MMO with a really strong IP (and does anyone think the SC IP is anywhere as strong as Warcraft?). The rules for SC MMO are much looser.

Maybe it'll be three-dimensional WoW. Maybe that's why they added flying mounts with BC, as the engine for SC. Or maybe it'll be an MMORTS. Or maybe they'll do what they always do, pick a genre that is reaching it's peak in relevance and capping by cribbing the best of the features offered.

As I always say, I thought they were very innovative by pretty much being the first MMO to be brave enough to remove most the suck and actually release a game that didn't kick me in the balls every time I try to play it.   :-P

They actually have stuff in place for implementing instanced player housing, but never got around to it, choosing to work on other things.  I recall them saying they are planning on patching it in though.  But as others have said, player housing is entirely a pointless side distraction that really adds nothing to the game (since in this world and most others, it needs to be instanced).  So thats a pretty stupid thing to judge them on.  No non-raiding end game?  Uh, what about the massive amounts of PvP (BG's, Arena, or fucking around the world killing people in mass) that most people spend their 70 lives doing?  Or the shit tons of 5 mans they do (non-raiding). 

What other major MMOs out there offer an end game thats not raiding and not PvP?

WoW is exactly up to speed on all the current ideas in MMO land, and I think most games that have been developed since it came out are heavily influenced by the way blizzard approached designing it.  Also, as I have said, the differences between Warcraft 2 and 3, and Diablo 1 and 2, are actually pretty staggering.  They do try to come out with very new ideas and don't just make a more shiny version of the old game.

So yes, I do think they are quite capable of doing it.  :wink:


Of course, they will probably punch me in the face by announcing World of Starcraft in Korea, but thats how life usually goes for me, so I'm use to it.

Being up to speed on what current MMO's are doing is, to me at least, the problem. Obviously WoW is entertaining. But the is certainly a market for those things WoW left out. For me, what it usually comes down to is why there can't be a single game that includes all the stuff in Wow, plus things like Eve, AtitD and so on... in a sci-fi world? If anyone can do it due to the money available, couldn't Blizzard?

World of Starcraft has been a given ever since Vivendi realized what a cash cow WoW is, and if you think otherwise then you smoke crack.  What, you think Vivendi is going to collect a couple billion dollars from MMOtards and then say anything besides "AGAIN!! MORE!!!"

Actually, it seems that a fuckton of people like elves. A lot. Though there's nothing like projecting one's own personal biases onto a much larger demographic.

I think it'd be more accurate to say that a lot of people would like a quality sci-fi MMO game that's neither SWG nor EVE.

So what you mean is, people who don't like elves want an MMOG.

If you don't like elves or can't tolerate them, that pretty much wipes out the entire fantasy genre.

My only worry is that Starcraft doesn't have enough real, interesting lore yet.

Another game would help that. Maybe... Starcraft 2?

Maybe they'll go for the double wammy and announce both at the same time?  Have a Starcraft 2 to set up the story, then release the Starcraft MMO for the ongoing, ala Warcraft?  I thought I remember hearing awhile ago that blizzard had been picking up RTS people.

I know its retarded, but a man can dream, can't he?  :cry:

If anyone's dreaming, it's me. Because they aren't going to announce my precious Diablo Online.

Which would, easily, be the cheaper of the two to create. Diablo would have near infinite replay also, just keep adding items and tilesets.

So easy.

Diablo Online should really just be GW ripoff in how they structure the action. As for gameplay, clickclickclickclick. Just with a bunch of other people in giant randomized dungeons. Goddamn I swoon.

An MMOG with hardcore mode.

I think I just wet myself.

There already is Diablo Online, and its name is Dungeon Runners. Sad but true.

Oh shut up.

I've changed my mind, I don't want to play six zerglings, the battlecruiser class will suit my purposes.

(http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/3927/hmsmiasmanw0.jpg)


I found two fake images from an old April fool's joke too:

(http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/3353/sconlinefake1ug4.jpg)

(http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/3445/sconlinefake2cu8.jpg)

Even fake, I'd be all over that.

I prefer pet classes.  Think I can get a Carrier?

Okay.

(http://img393.imageshack.us/img393/6934/lantyssacarrieroo0.jpg)

Dammit. Now I have to go play Starcraft again.

Awesome!  Thanks Miasma!

The rumors continue:


http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=163207&site=cvg

It's going to be funny when they announce Warcraft 4.

I'd lol.

Am I the only person on the planet who never played Starcraft?

Actually, there's one other person. Jimmy Carter.

I hope they announce that they are breaking into the social spaces racket.

If you like RTS, you missed out. It's like being a 4X fan and never having played the Civilization games, or having skipped Alpha Centauri. I mean, I liked the original C&C, and loved Red Alert -- but nothing compared to Starcraft. I still yank it out and play it every once in awhile.

Brood Wars took a really good game and made it damn perfect. Three distinct sides, three completely different playstyles, all in almost perfect balance. Fun ass game.

Screw this. If you like computer games at all, get starcraft and broodwar and play through them.

Player retention is not good enough reason? Player housing in WoW should be guild halls and its functionality should be a get-together nexus of portals and community chest.

Did I mention how primitive guild system in WoW? Sufficient to say there are no guild wars... UO had it in what, 98?

WoW's hurting for subs.

China is hurting for bikes.

Blizzard could have shat in the box (and you can make convincing argument that they did) and as long as it is polished enough it would sell. WoW success is 50% Blizzard name, 40% polish and only 10% gameplay.

You can't polish a turd.

Though I agree with half of your points (the ones concerning guild wars and housing), are you just trolling here ?

Tell that to Brad!

 :rimshot:

That's just absurd, if the game sucked people wouldn't still be subscribed to it and Blizzard's reputation would be in the toilet.  Bad games can destroy a company's brand name far easier than good ones can build it.

People bought the box based on the Blizzard logo but are still playing because they enjoy it.

I predict that Starcraft Galaxies will be all about humans and protoss running out into the wilderness with swords and pikes to tame six different colors of space-buffalos and monkeys and shit, and the only people who play it will be a hundred thousand crafters, and Lantyssa, who'll call you a fucknut if you suggest that a guy with a machine gun should be able to own a monkey-tamer.

 :-D

You, me and Jimmy Carter. I never thought I would have anything in common with Jimmy Carter.

That's absurd, but the next time you make up some numbers to prove a point, make up ones that actually help your cause.  Because you are saying that non-Blizzard WoW would have 4.25M subs based on gameplay and execution, and that non-Blizzard, non-polished WoW would get 850k subs (almost double EQ's max) just based on the gameplay.

Blizzard really is about 90% of the popularity. There's no question at this point.

Good. I loathe RTS, so I don't think I missed out. I might check out the MMOG though.

I'm not an RTS fan either, but I did like SC + Broodwars.

I'd question that.  I'm sure it helps, but there are a lot of big name companies with big name licenses which haven't had nearly the success that Blizzard has.  Square can sell crap in a can as long as it's got a "Final Fantasy" label on it, but Final Fantasy XI capped at what, 500k subs?  Less than 10% of World of Warcraft?  Is Square really that gimp compared to Blizzard?  I suspect that most of it's popularity is just because it's popular (like Counterstrike; everyone played Counterstrike, even if it wasn't their favorite game, because it was so universal, not because they had some deep reverence for the dev team).

Man, NO.

I don't want this to be a Starcraft MMO. Splitting an audience like that would just not be smart.

I highly, highly doubt it will be an MMO. And they said no Starcraft.

I'm with schild on this one, I think it will be Diablo-related.

I wish it WAS Starcraft, because then it would be Starcraft 2 - the inevitable first step before a Starcraft MMO.

I can't stand it either, but it was a good story.  Borrow a copy then use the cheat codes.

I'm hard pressed to find single innovative streak in WoW ... yet it so successful. That is what pisses me off.

You have a point.. Gameplay is probably around 3.5% if we go by numbers... So depressing. As to Non-BLizzard WoW, we will see how LoTRO will do, since that what it actually is.

It worked. That was a fucking miraculous innovation by MMORPG standards. Something some Dev houses (*cough* SOE *cough* SIGIL *cough*) still haven't grasped.

Another -- it was designed to be playable on lower-end machines, replacing GPU-intensive graphics with stylized (and low-poly) graphics so that it ran smoothly on a variety of machines, not just top-end gaming rigs. (A huge change from the standard, that probably accounts for 20% or more of it's subs).

Another -- highly quest based for levelling, with a very intuitive UI. I believe grinding was still the order of the day when it was released.

Another -- highly customizeable UI, with a publicized API allowing easy creation and addition of third-party mods. Made a huge difference for players of all types -- and the most popular mods tended to get absorbed into the base UI.

So, we've got accessible game,  that is playable (and looks good) on a wide array of computers (not just top-end stuff), intuitive UI layout and quest progression, and with an open UI that allows the bleeding edge catasses to write up anything they feel the UI is missing, which Blizzard happily steals for the non-catasses.

Nope. Nothing innovative there. I just can't think of any MMORPGs that launched before WoW that had all of those. Or, really, any of those. Perhaps someone had an open API for their GUI that I wasn't aware of.

It's not like it's competitors were grindy games where finding and doing quests only accounted for a fraction of the needed XP to level, had a long leveling curve, required top-end shit to run the game smoothly and looking good, and shit themselves on launch and required months and months to patch into basic playability.

If it means I don't have to play with you fucknuts, can I claim it as a victory?  :-P

Actually they are. The number of bikes you see now on the streets of Shanghai and Beijing has dropped a few orders of magnitude since the 80s. It's basically wall to wall cars, with some remnant bikes now.

What Morat said.  The game has plenty going for it to keep subs, and was still quit innovative when it came out.  The Blizzard name probably helped them get the initial surge of subs when it launched.  After that, I would account almost everything else entirely to mass attention/word of mouth it has received, and its fun gameplay (which did I mention it was fun?  Like, much more fun than pretty much any other MMO?  Cause thats why everybody I know who plays it, plays).  The Blizzard name argument makes no god damn sense.  Nobody keeps playing and paying for a god damn game because it has a name written on the box.  I got a number of friends into the game whom I've gotten to play several other MMOs in the past.  They couldn't get themselves beyond the teens in FF11 (me neither), or past the 20's in City of Heroes, before they quit in boredom/frustration.  Now they are all raiders (we do alot of PvP as well though for fun).  This is not an uncommon story to hear among others as well.

Please, for the love of god, quit using that argument!  It retains those millions of subs based on GAMEPLAY (and being able to play on an old machine also probably helps alot as morat said), whether you like it or not.

I don't know if you forgot green text or went funboi on us but WoW gameplay is as generic as sliced wondrebread. Its 100% DIKU. You group, pull mobs from static camps and kill them for exp while tanks hold agro, healers heal and mages blast damage... just like in any other DIKU. It can be fun if you are into that type of thing but it NOT innovative and its NOT gameplay that brings people to WoW.

WoW minimal specs are quite higher than UO/EQ/DAoC/AC at the time WoW released.


Are you trying to tell me that quests were WoW's innovation? Think about this again. Quests are almost as old as DIKU.


WoW UI was awful at release, they were just smart enough to incorporate majority of community mods into a client. Again, many games, have much better and equally open UI... just for some reason it took-in with WoW and huge UO mod community flourished that developers took clues from.


So why WoW so popular, what are these KEY things they got RIGHT? Is it ONLY Blizzard name and polish at release? Does it mean that any other title they release is 100% guaranteed success, given that its equally polished? Should they just re-skin WoW every few years and release it to be massive success? Why EQ2 failed but WoW succeeded, they are identical games. What does this mean for LoTR considering that its non-Blizzard's WoW?

Shrug, ignore the numbers, and try to figure out reasons other than the evident one as to why so many play.  Personally, I haven't played Warcraft before (nor Starcraft), and while Diablo was ok, I couldn't care less for the Blizzard name, but I enjoyed WoW for a while.  You don't like Dikus, so nobody does.  And like I said before, this "innovation" you keep looking for, it doesn't actually guarantee success.

In that case I hope you hate every single RPG made after the 80's (that includes planescape), every RTS after Dune/C&C, every FPS after Wolfinstien, ect, ect.

Just because its using the same format (like every other computer game pretty much does now a days) doesn't mean the damn gameplay is similar at all.  I have a good time in WoW, but I couldn't fucking stand EQ.  And I really TRIED.

And no, you dont god damn run around pulling mobs from static camps like in EQ.  You haven't even touched the game have you?

People bought the box because it said Blizzard on it.  That was years ago.  What's your explanation for why they're still playing it now?


I suppose you also believe no FPS can claim "low system specs" unless it requires fewer resources than Doom, right?  :roll:


I keed, I keed!

I got to max level in WoW, D2 and many other DIKU titles. Trust me, I know what DIKU is and I understand (and even partially share) what DIKU's to people is.

Still that is MAJORITY of gameplay in WoW is, you get into group, you run to instance and you pull mobs and kill them... repeatedly, until you are max level. Then you do A LOT MORE of the same to get your Twhatever sets.

There are a lot of people who played (and maybe are STILL playing SWG because of the name only. It's pretty much universally accepted that the game never reached it's potential, and despite many many flaws, people play(ed). I'm not disagreeing with you, per se, but I just wanted to point out that peopl WILL play a game out of reverence to the name (IP, etc...).

Goodness! You're right. WoW's minimum specs WERE quite a bit higher than a 6 year old game and a 8 year old game. Seriously, was that meant to be an argument?

EQ required a flaming video card -- back when those things weren't cheap or common. I don't know what UO required at the time of it's launch, but WoW launched looking better and playing better on a MUCH wider variety of machines than EQ2 did, than Vanguard did, than SWG did.....

I can't speak to AC or DAoC, never having played them.
Can you read, or are you just playing stupid? I say quest-based leveling. Quests formed the bulk of the experience needed to level, NOT grinding. That was a major fucking change.

Even if WoW's launch UI was the shittiest thing ever done, the fact that they actually took cues from users was innovative -- and frankly, you're really overstating it's launch UI. It was functionable, scaleable, VERY intuitive (no necessary slash commands, for example) and was clearly transparent to new users.

I can only imagine either you didn't play EQ2 at launch, you've never played WoW, or you are, in fact, so fucking blinded by the DIKU hatred as to be incapable of making any sort of realistic judgement.

EQ2 and WoW -- at launch -- had very little in common, aside from being DIKU.

A certain number of people will, but SWG never reached it's potential in subscribers, either.

Murray the Hydralisk Zerg.  That's awesome.

Anyone else getting 'Life of Brian' vibes from Sinji? "Apart from releasing a mostly-complete, fun to play, system friendly Everquest-done-right with quest-based levelling, an adaptable UI, artful graphics, and bringing MMOGs to a wider audience than anything before...what have Blizzard ever done for us, eh?"

Final Fantasy is a mixed bag. World of Warcraft was made with the Warcraft mythos in mind and could run on anything. FFXI was a $100 PS2 game, a $60 360 game and a game that couldn't run on most PCs. It was not based on any known FF world. It was not a familiar set of rules for the universe. And most importantly - PC games don't mean shit in Japan. And Final Fantasy doesn't mean shit to PC Gamers in America. Anyway, this is the sort of thing - despite being very popular - that I call a "judgement error."

As for Sinij in this thread, his insanity in this particular situation shines because of us knowing his fanaticism about UO and general inability to participate in an argument. That doesn't change the fact that WoW sets the bar for mediocrity. 8,000,000 people can be wrong and often are. But once again, with numbers like that, who gives a flying fuck what they do or how the game plays. They pull in more money than some countries and at the end of the day, that's what this is about.

And finally, for those trying to take that "name doesn't mean that much" bullshit. Really? It doesn't? Then why am I practically swooning over Diablo Online when I know Blizzard North has been gutted and spread between four different companies? Why aren't I waving a 4 section flag over my head with Arena.Net, Red 5, Perpetual and Flagship on it? BECAUSE I WANT DIABLO. AND I WANT IT TO SAY FUCKING BLIZZARD ON THE BOX. IP and Name does matter that much and you know it.

If WoW only had 150000 people, they would set the bar for excellence. In other words, they raised the average so much that their deficiencies and the deficiencies of the whole genre became readily apparent. For this they cannot be praised enough.


That might be insanity. It might also be that Diablo was your first MMOloot-based-whatever and you can't get over your first until you've been burned by your second.

Seriously, go play Diablo 2 from level 1 to 99 and then see if you ever want to play Diablo anything ever again. I tried to play D2 a year ago and I couldn't get to level 2 before remembering all the ways it sucked. I remembered all the improvements that would remove the suck, too. However, the resulting game wouldn't be Diablo, it would be an improved WoW.

Diablo is obsolete. And you clinging on to the Blizzard name is just refusing to accept that.

I guess that might be the experience on a PvP server, but it's doesn't bear any resemblence to how people do it on PvE servers, where people do quests all day long, not pull mobs non-stop in instances.

Refering back to your claim that lots of games have the flexibility of WoW's ui. Do you even understand the difference between a programming language like lua and an xml file? Every other game with a customizable ui only allows reskinning, which is downright primitive after being able to write programs that sit there and cooperate with the main program to help your playing. Try writing (or even finding) a mod for EQ2, or LoTR or any other game you can name with a custimizable ui that does half what a WoW mod does. Good luck.

I'm not a fanboi, in fact I quit WoW last month but seeing such ignorance expressed as fact is too much to bear. Just cop to hating the damn game and stfu.

Tikunnun0: I'm trying to figure out how to respond to you here, but saying that removing the suck from Diablo would make it WoW is just too incredibly bizarre to properly argue. A WoW with the option to start a character who can actually die wouldn't be WoW. And removing the Chasing the Exact Same Shiny aspect of WoW would remove it even further from WoW. Raids suck, man. And on top of that, there's no point in WoW that I've seen where your character is more than a well equipped peon. A well-equipped peon who has the same gear as everyone else no less. You're talking about adding suck to my Diablo, not removing it. And that's just crazytalk to me. You may as well have just written "pehpehpehpehpehpeh" for six lines.

-

Everyone else: What is with this UI nonsense? It's a fucking GUI. While bad GUIs are just that, they're bad. I would never base the quality of a game on a GUI though. I mean, who gives a shit? No matter what the GUI looks like it's still just a game of hotkey memorization and response. I'm not going to prop Diablo up to be more than that, but arguing it as a Point for WoW is just something I have trouble wrapping my head around.

Not 90%.  Not for most people.  SWG is a terrible example.  That fan base is wonky.  It's like the StarTrek fanbase.  Make a MMO game using the StarTrek IP and no matter how much it sucks, you'll still keep a couple hundred thousand people who use the game as a StarTrek-themed chat engine.  That doesn't mean Blizzard, or any other game IP can do the same thing.

A better example is Master of Orion 3.  Yes, name/IP caused me to buy the game.  Craptacular gameplay made me return it.  I don't think anyone is arguing that name won't bring users to the door, but they aren't going to come in and stay for a couple years if the game blows.

Additionally, look at DDO.   Game has tremendous IP, and a fanbase that could be expected to be wonky.  Yet the game was underwhelming and people are staying away in droves.

Dungeons & Dragons isn't really a name. I mean, it is, it's a brand. But under that brand are where the names are. Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, Planescape, etc. Instead of going for one of the well-established, interesting, and most importantly - loved - IPs under D&D, they went another direction. There's failure all around on that game but just slapping Dungeons and Dragons on it doesn't really guarantee anything.

How many times do I have to point out that the Star Wars and Star Trek fanbase is filled with people who aren't gamers. Blizzard's fanbase - and their millions and millions of boxes sold - can be fully attributed to how Blizzard functions as a company. Everything they do targets the gamer and their fanbase is legion. It is in the gaming industry and speaks directly to it. Yes, boxes and boxes of Star Wars and Star Trek games are sold on name alone. But I don't think a single title from either one of those IPs has ever sold as much as a Warcraft or Diablo title or Starcraft. Except maybe Warcraft 1. Blizzard puts out well-polished and tight titles often lacking in the innovation department but perfecting and thus profiting off the rest of the industries failures. WoW has snowballed into a phenomenon sure, but that fanbase is more likely to stay with Blizzard than touch any other company's product.

Clearly Blizzard needs to get off their laurels and release a suck-fest so that we can prove once and for all who's right.  What the hell are they waiting for?!

Blizzard doesn't release suck fests. Your response gives me a divide by zero error. On the other hand, I'd love them to give me something so innovative and exciting that I have interest in a Visa with its logo on it.

Brand name recognition with gamers + mmog = success?
What about The Sims Online, then?

Edit: I'm also not buying the SW fans <> gamers. If that were true, Lucasarts would have gone bankrupt a decade ago.

Sinji, you're trolling with the wrong engine.

Stop scaring away all the fish.

Dead.  Inside.

I weep for the etheral hollow that once constrained your soul and/or ability to love.

Also, even though I joked about Diablo 3, know this: any Blizzard employee(s) that went to South Korea to make a BIG ANNOUNCEMENT and subsequently announced something non-StarCrafty would never leave the stage alive.

Me and some friends have been playing Diablo 2 Lord of Destruction multiplayer, using Hamachi

Its fun stuff.

Though its about time for some hardcore action. Hey Schildy, wanna get in on some hardcore with me  :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart:

Nah, you're not.

Would it be safe to say that pursuing such a goal is what leads to pages of scorn about the resulting game when things don't go as planned? If I absorbed some of the remarks properly, it would appear that Blizzard was not "innovative" in their design of WoW, but simply took what others had tried and failed with and made it right. Sorta like how my sister saw how I got punished for doing something when we were kids, and didn't do it herself, saving her from some pain. I give them marks for listening to the players and putting in tools where the players can feel like a part of the process.

But isn't that because of the fact that they make a lot of money and are ABLE to do those things? WHat it seems to boil down to is that first, the Warcraft IP is much more valuable to the *gaming* market that many other's, and second, money makes things happen. Was WoW great right from launch, or did it take them a month or two to get things in gear? The absolute FLOOD of money that began poring into their pockets after launch sure would have helped to solve any problems they had.

This is why I asked earlier why it was that someone like Blizzard didn't "sponsor" the games/companies that chased after the new game shinies. If anyone can ensure a revolutionary piece of code that changes the way we play games, it's got to be someone with the money to see it through... or someone supporting someone else who does it.

I've had 4 different level 99 D2 characters over the years.

You all are seriously downplaying the value of marketing via a global media company (Vivendi Universal).

Sure, WoW is solo/quest friendly, has low specs, no death penalty... but there is something about the way Vivendi games grab noobs and turn them into hardcore fanboys with a mission to make everyone they know play the game.  It may not be Vivendi so much as maybe perhaps Sierra, I don't know for sure.

And $50 or $80 million or whatever for development doesn't hurt, either.

Next Blizzard project?  Eve Online with instances and no looting other players.

Raph and others have said SWG sold at least a million boxes.  The crappy gameplay kept people from continuing and word of mouth kept the curious away.

The name gets the initial surge (Blizzard will have more than most), but their experience is what draws or keeps away additional players.  WoW would not be so successful without the people who never heard of Blizzard before.

What sort of game would that be?  EQ2 in space?

Actually, my opinion on Blizzard's success is that they -- more than most gaming shops -- have implemented professional quality software development processes, and that their shop culture revolves around it. Judging by the way they develop, they seem to have adapted evolutionary development to the game industry quite well, have a mature and rigorous process, and have talented designers, developers, and artists who fully buy into doing things "the right way".

Too many shops run by the solo-hacker method of development, or it's team-based equivilant. Makes development slow, but you can see the benefits over the long-term.

Not that it really matters much, but SWG sold a mil boxes about a year and a half after launch.  Although I wonder what percentage of those was people buying extra accounts and dual / triple boxing it.

By elimination method only reason for success that is left is fact that  Blizzard does not innovate. Is it why Blizz's so success? Polished mediocrity sells?

Hello, and welcome to the real world. Enjoy your stay.

The Honda Civic is a nice car isn't it...

Congratulations, you have conquered your Everest many times.

Here are the things that sucked in Diablo 2 as I remember them:

• You can permanently gimp your character with your stat and talent point allocation.
• The talent system rewards you for saving your talent points.
• The zones are lifeless. There is no unforgettable scenery.
• You have to grind for exp to keep up with quests, especially later.
• There is no path to getting a better piece of equipment, just grinding.
• The UI with its click-click-click and the choose-skill/use-skill distinction.
• The endless grind and repeating quests if you want to beat the game by creating a perfect character.

If Blizzard were to make Diablo Online that fixed those, a) it wouldn't be Diablo as y'all remember and b) when it finally released, it would be to WoW as EQ2 at launch was to EQ.

Does it outsell everything else by as much as WoW? I give it that there is market for polished turds in every market but you don't see 9/10 people drive Civic/Yaris/Sentra.

I'd say most represented market is low-mid class, something like Altima/Accord/Camry followed by entry luxury like BMW/Lexus/Acura.

You didn't answer my question, so I won't answer yours.

Honda Civic is not a nice car. BMW 760 Alpina or Austin Martin are nice cars. Honda Civic is CHEAP car and people that buy them do it simply because they can't afford anything better.

The auto market is way more mature than the MMO market though.  I don't know what the Honda Civic sales numbers are, but I think (no proof) that the Ford Model T or whatever it was did outsell everything else as much as WoW does, back in the days where the automobile was just starting to take off.

Or maybe it just serves a purpose for folks who want simple transportation from point A to point B and that's all that matters to them. In that case why would they purchase an automobile for twice as much, even if they could afford it?

Not true.  I know quite a few people that can buy a brand new 3 or 5 series BMW, but buy used Hondas instead.

Aside from the fact that 15k base isn't cheap, I'd put a Honda Civic as equal to or better than any BMW in terms of build quality and reliability and superior to ANY Aston Martin. 

Civics are very nice, well built cars; regardless of cost.

1) You can. I didn't.
2) Not really.
3) The zones are full of life. Mostly random. Bosses where you'd expect to find them. Mini-bosses all over. Hundreds of monsters all over, otherwise.
4) Grind? Quests? Are we talking about Diablo2?
5) There is no grind in D2. I'm not sitting outside a town killing the same dwarf guard over and over. I'm wading through bodies of fallen enemies. If I don't want to play, I don't play. There are no Joneses to keep up with. I don't want paths towards getting certain equipment unless it's harvesting the correct resources needed to create an item. A specific mob dropping a specific magic item is dumb. Unless you're talking about a system where what you kill has what it's wearing on the corpse. I like that system, but that system is neither here nor there. (and was only partly in UO.)
6) Left click enemy. Hold. You're now attacking! Congrats, you advance to Level 2!
7) No grinding in D2. Just playing. There is no "goal" you're just wasting time, whacking monsters. You don't repeat quests. You do them once per difficulty level. Are you sure you played Diablo2? My only goal in D2 was to see how deep in the shit I could get myself and come out alive. Lightning mini-bosses on Hell difficulty put you in your place quickly.

And looking at marketshare:

Ford F-Series (F-150) 3%
Honda Civic 3%
Chevrolet Silverado 1500 3%
Toyota Camry 3%
Honda Accord Sedan 2%
Toyota Corolla 2%
Toyota Tacoma 2%
Nissan Altima 2%
Dodge Ram 1500 Pickup 2%
Honda Odyssey 1%


Probably a better example.

Speaking of automotives -- I just stumbled onto the projected features/rumors for the 2009 Prius and got an instant erection. I was planning on buying one early in 2008, but if the 2009 stuff shapes up I'll happily wait, even if I have to buy a junker to keep me on the road for six more months.

80+ MPG, shaves two seconds off the 0-60 range, 1000 miles per tank, and a denser more efficient battery pack so more trunk room. Fuck yeah.

Prius are like Porche, an ego car the only difference is that it measures MPGs instead of 0 to 60.

But back to WoW


Interesting analogy. So next larger than life with tons of frills (50s era cars) mmorpgs? I can live with that, hope it takes less than 20 years to get there.

And lots of Edsels.

Actually for asians - 6% marketshare for the Civic.  You are buying reliability and resale value.

Gas isn't getting cheaper. I'm happy with paying a bit extra up front for 40mpg. I'm fucking thrilled with paying the same price (2009 prices aren't supposed to move more than inflation) for fucking 80mpg.

Ego car my fucking ass. I'm sick of filling up every week for 40+.

Edited to add: Current model Prius' are a net loss versus gas purchases under normal driving conditions and current gas prices. However, I find it easier to pay extra through a five year loan for a lengthy effective discount on gas. Secondly -- and more importantly -- gas prices aren't going to go down much, so the point where a Prius becomes cost effective versus gas prices gets sooner and sooner. Thirdly, the 2009 model is looking to get twice the mileage with better perfomance, which I sincerely bet is going to change that little equation even more.

Oh -- and don't think no one noticed that you ignored five seperate reponses on innovative changes in WoW. You know you don't have a fucking case, so why are you harping on it? Is your fucking DIKU hate so strong you have to force reality to bend to it?

schild more than adequately addressed all points for me, I didn't felt like re-typing his responses since I agreed with them 100% (even part that called me a nut)

Yeah, the bit responded to here was puzzling to me.  You don't grind in D2.  You either feel like killing every fucking monster in the world, or you don't play.  To do otherwise is akin to playing Pac-Man and bitching about having to "grind" on dots.

EDIT:  Been on a 16-bit kick lately.  I won't give a fuck about Starcraft Galaxies or whatever, but if Blizzard's big announcement is World of Rock 'N Roll Racing, sign my ass up.  :-D

Calling the monster-cide 'grinding' is just as valid (or invalid) as calling running an instance in WoW 'grinding' - yes, you're attempting to slaughter everything between you and your goal but you're not grinding in the old EQ/L2/etc sense of 'Sitting in one spot pulling identical mobs for hours on end just to get the next level"

I think the amount of pleasure derived should be a part of that definition. 'Grinding' in WoW would be defined as being not particularly fun. Plowing through stuff in D2 is.

I think it was normal difficulty where I noticed I was falling behind recommended levels for the few quests that there are. So I looked at a guide, found the mob that gives best exp/hour for my level, then zone in, clear, zone out, zone in, clear, zone out, ...

That is the definition of grinding and is the reason I quit in disgust.

Then the problem was with you, I suspect.

"go back to WoW", eh?

Pining for the original Diablo is like pining for the original EQ. At best it will pass soon, at worst it takes $20m and you end up with VG.

This is very true.  I currently own a BMW and a Kia Sorrento.  I am selling the BMW because it is unreliable and expensive to fix and insure, and because, as AcidCat says, I just want a way to get me, my wife, my friends and my dogs from A to B, and I really don't care any more about demonstrating to the world how well my company's share options have done in the last couple of years.  Nor do I care about how my car can reach 130 with ease when I never get to go above 70 in it.  The Kia is big, dull and functional and never breaks down.  Even if it did, I still have 28 months of unlimited milage warranty left, and if I really want then I can extend that further for 250 quid a year: I spend more than that just on the basic oil service for the beamer.  Oh, and the 4x4 has a bigger engine *and* better fuel consumption than the BMW.

BMWs suck.  People buy them because they want to look rich in their car.  I imagine that is why I bought it, but I grew up.  The Honda civic, while impractical for me, is a well-built, reliable, functional little thing that comes cheap and runs even cheaper.

/derail

The reliability of Teutonic engineering is vastly over-rated anyway.

BMWs are not for soccer moms - its not a car you can ignore and it will keep limping home even with majority of its system malfunctioning. Unless you have a lemon (and hey speaking of lemons, Honda Automatic transmission issues?) brand new BMW is not any more or less reliable than any other car, afterwards maintenance matters A LOT. Due to the fact that BMWs can get to 130 easily a lot of precision engineering went into them that does not play well with 'just put in cheap stuff' at Quicklube twice a year.

I dealt with a lot of old and new BMWs and often problems can be traced to negligence by owners. Fact that people that can buy brand new BMW often can afford to run them into the ground in 4 years doesn't help it in any way.

As to BMW being expensive to fix, yes they are, especially if you do it a dealership. When you deal with dealership you are paying for service. I don't know if any of you ever owned BMW but dealer service is always superb, they give you loaner car while its in the shop and they actually clean and wash your car after they are done.

I find key to successfully owning BMW/Porche is being mechanically inclined. If you understand cars you will avoid a lot of problems Joe Avrage gripes about when they compare it to some PeasantMobile.

I'm glad you like you Kia but get back to me in a year, when rattles start, cheap interior goes and you forget what it is like to pass someone on a highway with ease.

Side story: I purchased 14 year old BMW for a relative when he went to college. I found one in good shape that was cared for, did a lot of preventive fixes and gave it away along with good repair manual and a toolbox. He still owns that car... and prefers it to his brand new car.


I guess that is the main problem with WoW, too many people never took pre-Tram UO, SB, EvE for a spin to know exactly what they are missing and think that mediocrity of 'just works' is the best thing ever. I can even understand 'just works' attitude when it comes to transportation, but picking bland mediocrity for ENTERTAINMENT?

Both my boss and his brother buy a new BMW every year or two, then they go through months of the car not working at all and having to be rebuilt.  The next six months are spent ironing out lesser glitches.  There will be a major malfunction every six months or so.  The guy who owns a mini (made by BMW) is on a first name basis with the driver of the shuttle bus who takes him to and from the repair garage.  I don't know why they keep on buying these pieces of shit.  It's startling because they are both sticklers for details, want things to be done right, get angry when things go wrong and have little tolerance for ineptness in every way but then always let BMW slide and make up excuses for them.

Mercedes are even worse.

Sounds like the problem is with you. When I'm creating my characters in D2, act1 is played normally. From Act2 onward I set /players 8 so I get more experience per kill and each monster is tougher. It simulates that 8 players are connected and adjusts the difficulty as needed.

Try a hammerdin or a bowazon with the summon next time.

Nah, I *am* mechanically minded, treat the BMW well, stick to the servicing schedule, take it in when I hear or feel anything unusual.  I used to take cars apart with my grandfather and father - we rebuilt one MGB in particular many times.  The problems with the beamer are not to do with the engine, which is, of course, only just beginning its life at 45,000 miles.  That has never been an issue.  The gearbox is, similarly, solid if a little stiff.  But, for example, the electrics in the doors have had to be replaced, twice in the right driver's door for both the window and the locking system.  The electrics in general have been the most expensive element, probably costing around £400 - 800 dollars - a year on average.  The cam shaft sensor has failed.  The rear suspension bushes were knackered after 36,000 miles, and the front suspension ball joints didn't last much longer: the suspension sub-system in general has been really shoddy and the only excuse is that it occasionally sees cobbles in Edinburgh.  And then there were little things like the fact that both pistons in the boot went.  I've checked, and these are pretty common things.

Of course, it is lovely to drive: the back end steps out wonderfully when you give it the chance.  The engine is a dream.  But I've done all that stuff now.

By the way, the standards of service in the dealers I've dealt with have been consistent across BMW, Ford and Kia.  I always get a lift to my office and picked up afterwards (though Eastern BMW only take me to a specific point in the western central town and no further).  They all wash and clean the car.

PS I played pre-tram UO and play Eve (though never SB).  I hate WoW, and only played it for a few months total because the wife liked it for a while.

I'm not going to copy/paste my post from another board, but it's on topic with BMWs.

From the SA boards (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2465942)

I think you answered your own question there.  Like the TV, sometimes bland Entertainment that requires NO EFFORT whatsoever is better than "quality" entertainment that requires a lot of effort to get.  Come home from work, you want to RELAX rather than actually have a top notch entertainment experience (those are reserved for the weekend / Friday night / whatever, when you go out to a nice restaurant etc).  I guess there are a lot more people coming home from work wanting to relax, than there are people who are already relaxed and looking for taste, quality, and an exquisite evening, every day.

You mean the part where he said jack shit about whether WoW was innovative or not?

Just give the fuck up. You let your blazing red-hot fucking DIKU hate obscure reality for a second, said something stupid, and now are playing duck-and-weave. Blizzard's made significant changes to the DIKU model as applied to MMORPGs -- specifically quest-based experience, low-systems reqs (for a fucking NEW game -- I still can't believe you were desperate enough to compare WoW at launch specs with Ultima Online -- jesus, man), a highly solo-friendly 1-60 game, and for the bleeding edges -- the Lua scripting language and UI access.

All of that was new and fucking different. It wasn't a gargantuan fucking change in the MMORPG industry. It didn't make it non-DIKU, which seems to be your sole definition of 'innovative in a MMORPG setting', but it was a series of well-needed and well-recieved changes that made sure those Blizzard fanbois kept playing -- and that the rest of the gaming market came along.

Morat you should have started ignoring him after those two bolded abbreviations.

I own a 03 325CI and I'm not loving it too much, to be honest. It doesn't have many miles on it, but it just feels like a maintenance queen. My previous car, a 1983 911, was a simpler, easier car. Even if the clutch cost twice as much to replace as it would on a VW, you don't have to worry about it unless you abuse it.

I too have experienced the 'replace the entire thing' syndrome at BMW. Recently my front brake pads went, and they simply replaced the entire brake system on the front! $600 bucks for brake pads! I got a bunch of garbledigook explanations from the dealership about the advanced brake system on BMWs, and how that required a full replacement, yada yada yada, but that shit would not be the case with an older model Porsche.

I'm enclined to shop around and find another pre-1984 Porsche 911, and trade it in. Yes, technically, I'd be losing money, but I see nothing but a trail of tears ahead of me with the 325CI, whereas my previous experienced with an older Porsche was not expensive by comparison.

Probably. You know, now that I think about it -- the energy and rage mechanics on WoW were a bit different to me, but my MMORPG experience is highly spotty. Did Blizzard pick those off of someone, or did they do that themselves?

I drive an S-10 and it kicks ass and has 190k on it and is still purring away.

Oh shit, sorry...this thread was about MMO's until people started stroking themselves over owning BMW's (kinda like the reason you would buy one in the first place).

All I know is, from this point on 'Next Gen" = the next Blizzard MMO, period. What kind of aspiring MMO's do we have coming down the pipe that could get called anything besides WoW with *insert function here*. WoW with action combat and sieges (AoC) will do well. Wow with DAOC (Warhammer) will do slightly worse. Companies will want to emulate the cash cow, and so they will fail. A couple small houses with balls might get an eve-esque niche. Until Bliz decides its time for the Next Gen and they steal and tweak the best shit out of all those games and produce a fun , addictive, playable, and stable "3rd gen" MMO.

And Vanguard will rise from the ashes just to facebang all of us non-believers. ;)

Which gen are we on now?  I forget.

Energy is a better version of SWG's depleating HAM.  The base concept at least, without the consequence of killing yourself in the process.  Both are really a rapidly refilling mana bar so I consider it more of a new execution of an old design.

I'm not aware of using Rage in a similar fashion, although I'm personally not too big on it.  I prefer CoV's Brute mechanic for building up power over the course of a fight.

I haven't managed to try CoV -- I want to, but frankly I kept burning out on CoH too fast. Which sucks, because CoH had -- hands down -- the most awesome and interactive feel to combat. I had a blast. It wasn't the combat that burned me out -- not sure what it was. Repetitive missions? The horrid realization that building characters was even more fun than playing them?

The fact that I didn't have a regular group of friends in the game didn't help.

I would just like to say that anybody who says WoW's success is 90% having "Blizzard" on the box is smoking crack heretofore unavailable in mortal dimensions.  Seriously schild/sinij/whoever, we are through the Looking Glass of mundane insanity-fueled hatred and into Blair-Land. 

The best part about saying it's 90% Blizzard is that no one can prove me wrong and every day that goes by proves me more right and everyone else more wrong.

How is life in Bizzaro-world, anyway?

If by it being 90% blizzard meaning they made it fun, playable, addictive, and polished I'll buy that :)

It's realistic.

I'm sure that, any day now, they'll drift off to the better MMORPGs that don't have Blizzard's name on them. I mean, seriously, the name has to wear off, right? It's not like it's a magic name that saps all the will from it's players.

Ok rage mechanics. You managed to dig up something innovative in WoW in all these WoW-manual thumping and fanboism. As to rest of you 'points' - UI and quest exp are reaching for the straws. Seeing how you unable to even indentify few innvations WoW brought to mmorpgs, few and far in between, I will help you. WoW innovations are - warrior's rage tanking, rest bonus to exp, wide use of instancing and flightpath transportation. These innovations are TOO FEW and TOO INSIGNIFICANT to explain success of WoW or even to call it innovative title.

Minus 1... UO/M59 were first gen, it all went downhill from there.

I don't recall any games having visual indicators for quest givers previously.
Not having to bash rats to start.
And effective use of humor.

If the name is that important, why aren't you playing WoW again? :-D

Going to keep ignoring the other ones, huh? Quest-based XP, intuitive layout and GUI (lack of any need for slash commands), highly and supported GUI API (lua is fucking head and shoulders above the sort of things you could do before), low systems requirements (seriously, I can understand not touching this one. You had to bring up UO as a system that had lower requirements than WoW. Pretty humiliating for you), casual leveling, newbie friendly, smooth-running and good looking on a wide assortment of systems -- Don't blame you. It's all a bit damaging to your case. But you keep up that burning hate. Not sure why WoW upsets you so, but hey -- if it works for you, go for it!

Seriously, I'd bow out of this one. You're looking like a psycho twit at this point.

Giving out exp/loot/reputation for quest is as old as actually having quest/levels. Only thing Blizzard did different with quest is added A LOT MORE of them than usual and made reward worthwhile for majority of them. You still have to bash monsters to finish clear majority of these quests. Its a marginal evolutionary step at best, but more a design choice, and not an innovation by any means. If WoW truly allowed to move away from monster bashing (like UO with crafting for example) and still advance then I'd grudgingly accept it as innovation even that we have earlier precedents.


WoW's GUI at release was nothing special, even today after lengthy polish process is at best adequate. You still memorize keys and press them in specific order and have few to none automation options. WoW's GUI still has unintuitive character/camera movements, dysfunctional point-and-click and lousy macro implementation. For example SB's interface is A LOT more customizable and does not require two hands to pilot your character in combat. I will give you that overabundance of GUI modders and Blizzard actually embracing it for a change is unique... but that mostly due to popularity of WoW. So your GUI argument appears to be circular in nature - it all boils down to WoWs popularity.


I don't buy it. Minimal specs as innovation? Like nobody before had game that could be played on average machine?


Seriously, bow out of your fanboism. WoW is *NOT* innovative title and trying to argue that its breakthrough innovations that were key to WoW success is well... make you look " like a psycho twit at this point".

Because I wasn't turned into a sheep by the guy playing a mage next door.

What game allowed you to go from start to level cap purely on quest XP? Before WoW? Oh wait, I think the answer you're searching for is "none". This shouldn't come as a stunning announcement to you, since, you know, about three people have mentioned it.

However, we're talking "DIKU innovation" here and not "Shit Sinjj would consider DIKU innovation", mostly because "Shit Sinjj Would Consider DIKI Innovation" is more accurately called "Not being DIKU".


Keep ignoring Lua and the huge access Blizzard explicitly granted modders by using it. People will keep reminding you.


Not an MMORPG. Nobody was fucking aiming at the average machine. But you know that too, or you wouldn't have quoted games like UO as a 'counter-example' back at me.

Don't even have a sub at the moment. Damn, you're not getting anything right today, are you? Nor did I ever claim "innovation" was the key to WoW's success -- I merely corrected you when you claimed WoW had made no innovations and listed a number of them. It's hardly my fault that you seem to consider "innovation" in the DIKU world to be "Making it not a DIKU". With that definition, you're quite correct. Nothing WoW did broke the Diku mold. It expanded it, added a lot of nice new things that will undoubtably become standard feature for new DIKU games -- but it's still DIKU.

Your response to this was to bullshit, change the subject, ignore responses, and then finally -- here -- to invent a strawman. Hell, you're practically a Creationist.

If you consider "missions" as "quests" then technically CoH allowed you to go from level 1 - 50 doing only missions. I realize that this is a stretch.  Questing in this manner was also possible in EQ2 which released at nearly the same time as WoW.  There were several MUDs that allowed you to quest xp as well, but calling them "quests" is a stretch.  Many were more like tasks.  The thing that WoW brought to the table was that quests were worth enough xp to make them a viable option even to those players wishing to get to the endgame in the most efficient manner.  I appreciate that Blizzard brought this to the genre.  I'm not sure how innovative this was as much as an evolution of the genre.

I always viewed CoH missions as better implementations of SWG's mission terminals. MUCH better implementations. Effectively, it just spawned a group of mobs for you and your party to go kill, rather than having to go look for them.

I thought EQ2's questing was patched in, although admittedly I was thinking more of WoW's quest XP being so damn useful. Felt more like a regular RPG in that sense, and I suspect added a lot to newbie enjoyment, in that just by questing they were leveling up approiately.

Now that you mention the terminal thing, I guess AO had a pseudo quest system as well.  Pick your mission, pick your reward.  Other than the craptastic release, AO did bring some interesting ideas to the table.  Almost gives me some hope for AoC.

Rage is really, really like White Wolf's Werewolf game mechanic for letting you do "specials" when you get hurt in fights.  Close enough that I'd be confident that that's where they got it from, if I didn't know that someone would be bound to say "we discussed it on MudDev back in eighty-whatever".

Again, WE ARE AT BLAIR-LEVEL MENTAL HEALTH.  BLAIR.  THE ONLY RESPONSE IS "NICE CHECKMATE".   

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia

This concludes our daily 5 minute Hate. Please go about your business citizens.

Actually, I think AC2 had something similar to the rage mechanic.  You built up points until you used your special and the longer you waited the stronger it got, I don't recall if it was for being hit that you accrued points though.  Also, I recall that they had visual indicators for people you should talk to.

Mechanics, obviously, aren't the only component that make a game popular.

Pretty late to this party, but I disagree with this as someone who studies and implements GUIs for a living.  Sure, you can work around a crappy gui.  But if it has annoying aspects and it's hard to do certain things, especially in a high-stress context (like combat or on-phone customer service) it adds up to a lot of psychic pain.  At work it's to be expected, but in a game, it very much narrows the audience for your product down to those who love it enough to put up with it, or can figure a way to improve on it.

Good observation.  I prefered Werewolf's version though in that you start with a pool which gives you many options at the start of a fight.  I never could get into a Warrior in WoW because by the time I had the Rage to do anything, I needed to rest.  (I'm sure it's better at high levels, but I couldn't make it that far.)

No shit. Bad GUIs you fight to get to the content. Good GUIs -- you don't even notice it's there. Really good GUIs do all that PLUS have a quick learning curve, and are friendly to novices. WoW's GUI is useable "out of the box", intuitive to novices, and while modders have MADE better GUIs and made lots of cool addons that make it even better, the out-of-the-box GUI was functional, very easy to use, and meant you didn't have to learn a single goddamn slash command to do anything.

I could drop my mother, who never met a computer program she couldn't misunderstand, into WoW and she'd be able to play without having to get out the manual. Part of that is the tutorial/newb areas but most if it simple a GUI laid out for people who aren't "old MMORPG hands".

Blizzard approached WoW -- like it does all it's games -- with the initial question "How do we make accessing functionality easy and transparent to the user?". Which means fucking "!" signs over quest givers, a GUI that anyone who can surf the web can use, and a highly accessible game. You don't fucking need cutting edge computers, MMORPG experience, or to read the fucking manual to play -- even if you're so damn computer illiterate you have to have your kids turn on the PC for you.

And that is a fucking good GUI design, and something really lacking in a lot of other games.

The "innovative" part I'd say is Lua -- for the simple reason (as noted elsewhere) that it was designed and built to offer functionality, power, and access to the game systems far beyond what anyone else had ever dared to let the users have. Blizzard wanted to co-op the best UI modders ideas, so it gave them the tools to mod the UI easily.

I don't think "innovative" is the right word to use, really. To me it means something that stands out clearly as new and better. Cool factor. Other than being able to customize the gui, which is certainly cool, I haven't seen anything else described by those who have played it. That shouldn't detract too much from Blizzard's rep though. There is nothing wrong with them taking existing idea's or systems, tweaking them, and making them work.
If we're lucky, Blizzard will implement more tools to allow players to contribute to the structure of them game. Maybe in their next game even. Maybe they can figure out how to double or even triple the current cap of the number of players in close proximity at one time. That would be cool. How about a single server allowing 50k concurrent login's? A game ground world that dwarfs the current champ Dark & Light (they *are* still the biggest, right?) Those kind of things would be cool. More XP for whack-a-mole, more complicted delivery missions, and so on, are nice, but not "cool".

This thread needs a Schild and Sinij exorcism and then it may approach reality.

 :roll:

FFXI has a "rage type" mechanic, and came out way before WoW.

Your TP goes up as your fight, and you can use it to use abilities. It goes down slowly when you stop fighting for a while.

The only difference is, TP is alot slower to accumulate than the rage in wow, but the system is the same :)

Rage is definetly not an innovate feature in WoW :)

Back to the "you can't prove me wrong so I am rite!" argument of yours?

As I said last time you used it (were we talking about the Wii? Or WoW? I can't recall). It just makes you look like an idiot and diminishes your opinions when you're saying something intelligent.

Why do you see it as a stretch?

Most CoH missions are just 'kill mobs in region X', some are scripted rather better.

Most other-MMOG quests are just 'kill mobs in region X', some are scripted rather better.

Most CoH missions these days are part of storyline. Most are non-repeatable. Most contribute to storyline rewards.



On the innovation thing, I haven't seen anything new WoW brought to the genre aside from polish.

I don't think other MMOGs after WoW are copying any systems or mechanics that were first seen in WoW. Because there weren't any.

But I don't much care either. Not every game has to be innovative. I don't see it as a bad thing that someone decided they were going to take the typical MMOG circa 2003 and make a better and shinier version than anyone else. Blizzard had a strategy. Blizzard executed the strategy well.

And give up on the rage thing. Plenty of games used the rage concept before WoW.

And customizing the GUI has been with us in MMOG land since at least EQ, was copied in DAoC, and again in WoW.

I'm still waiting for an explanation from those two as to why, if brand name > *, The Sims Online doesn't have half a billion subs.

And if you're waiting for it to be coherent or make any sense, or even be in the same plane of reality that you inhabit, you'll be waiting a long, long time.

I suspect the answer forthcoming will be 'Uh, Because, Doofus.  Don't you know ANYTHING ?'

Sigh.


Star Wars Galaxies.  Star Wars Fucking Galaxies.

I was surprised to see SimsOL fail so miserably... even considering that game was epiphany of unfinished, choke-full-of-broken-promises product it failed rather spectacular. My guess is that it failed due to failing to understand needs of targeted demographics - typical SIMs player is super-casual computer user that wants nothing to do with mmorpgs or monthly payments.

Back to WoW discussion – its really unusual that I fully agree with schild… but here, please, calling G-fucking-UI, minimal specs and more-exp for quest an INNOVATION? When did you all went so bat-shit-fanboi insane?

WE CAN'T STOP HERE ITS FANBOI COUNTRY.

Main Entry: in•no•va•tion 
Pronunciation: \ˌi-nə-ˈvā-shən\
Function: noun
1 : the introduction of something new 2 : a new idea, method, or device : novelty

Why are you guys so fixated on innovation?  I for one do not think WoW is innovative, unless (and sadly you can) you count the game actually working most of the time as innovative.

WoW does have a few innovations, as Morat was pointing out, but not enough to qualify it as innovative overall.

And you're right, it's fanboi country. I live there. I much prefer it to the angsty cafe I mentioned in that other thread.

The Patent Office awards patents on the application of old ideas in new ways.

Originally we were trying to figure out what are key elements to WoW's success. Blizzard brand name and Warcraft franchise seem like key reason. This could mean that whatever they release next will be as successful as WoW, regardless of which franchise Blizzard uses - Starcraft, Lost Vikings, Warcraft or Diablo. Hence whole discussion in 'Neg-Gen MMO' thread.

 Like whole bunch of patent-troll-galore patents for whatever-over-Internet... because we all know they are real INNOVATIONS and patent system works as intended.

It is when you base an entire class around it.

Then I don't get why the counter examples cited aren't good enough.  Star Wars = WAY more mainstream franchise; result: flop. Sims = way more widespread brand recognition; result: flop.  If you mean stricly dev house recognition, sure, among gamers Blizzard has a good name.  It's not magic that got them there, though, it's consistent quality. WoW is a quality product, as provably as you can get (judging by stability, feature set, etc), regardless of whether the gameplay is your thing.

So yeah, I disagree that brand recognition and franchise are the key advantage that Blizzard has.  Their key advantage is consistent delivery of fun* games that don't crash frequently or have stability problems or have runaway balance problems or most of the other hobgoblins that plague this space.  Brand loyalty is the result of these things, not the cause.


*your definition of fun of course may vary

Ok - here's the innovative thing Blizzard did....

They spent time to make sure everything worked pretty well before they released.

Well, they certainly have these advantages now, for their next MMO.  I disagree that they had these for WoW at the time WoW launched sufficiently to account for WoW's success.  The Blizzard name was well known, sure, but the WoW numbers surpass what they could have gotten on name alone.

Fine.

Then everything is innovative.

The word becomes meaningless. And I win the thread.

uhmmm... Starcraft alone figures...


I think most people knew played computer games knew who Blizzard was.

Rage is only a newish mechanic in MMOGs. It's been around in console titles forever. Not innovation. Just borrowing from what might as well be considered a different genre.

The answer, rather obviously, is that name brand gets you initially noticed. Sims Online had a pretty good chunk of people trying it in beta. They just all ran away screaming once they realized what a PoS it was. SWG had a pretty good launch, it just couldn't carry the momentum once people actually tried to play it.

The difference was that WoW was a good enough game to retain people after the initial launch, and good enough to generate word of mouth buzz to attract more players.

So...the continued success of WoW is because it's a good game (relative to the particular subgenre of MMOG it is in)?

That's what pretty much everyone except the Two S'sses have been saying, though.

Same deal as our car argument... is no-frills economy but reliable car can be 'a good car' or would you rather have sports convertible that can be finicky at times but rewards you with performance, style and comfort every time you use it? While for transportation 'just works' might be good enough reason, but when it comes to entertainment?

I'd say a cheap but reliable car is very good indeed but I don't much care for for driving and wish to fiddle with it as little as possible. The subject has already been brought up but I think WoW is popular because its easy and somewhat fun. If you are just looking to burn some hours on a relatively simple game then its great. On the other hand if you want a religious experience in an MMO its not what you are looking for.

For Star Wars at least, the fan base is not exclusively computer gamers. I won't even try to guess the percentage (maybe some of the smart guys in here can), but it's safe to say that less than 100% of the people who like that IP are gamers. On the other side, you have the Blizzard name, which is synonymous with computer games. Their IP's are exclusively, 100% computer games. Therefore 100% of the people who know the name are computer gamers. Makes for a decent player base for their new games.

I am rooting for a Starcraft MMO next, but only if it has a good crafting/economic model. Better than WoW would be a nice start. An I want to sit in game. And decorate.  8-)

Oh come on, if 10% of 100 million star wars fans are gamers (which, is in no way unreasonable) thats a pretty big player pool.

My stepdad, who is a die-hard Starwars fan (~$20k in collectibles) thinks the games suck. He still plays red alert 2 daily. He's 54 and a JADED Starwars gamer. He had 0 interest in SWG. I think he started hating the Starwars games with XvT. We played the shit out of Xwing, Tie Fighter, and the SNES side scrollers.

WOW was/is good because they released the most finished product in the history of online games. You wordy motherfuckers can argue all you want but nobody else has done it. Before or since.

The only thing you might compare it to is FFXI, but that is such a shoddy PC game that pretty much everyone I know blew it off. It's consoled to fuck, worse than Oblivion and Deus Ex 2. The only PC gamers I know who put up with FFXI for more than 3 weeks are animu nerds who are probably closet pedos. Dead serious.

8 year olds, dude.

pol·ish [pol-ish]
- noun

Wait, what? There are Polish people working for Blizzard? Polish people drink a lot.

Wheee, it got even sillier.

Serious discussion about video games is pretty much doomed from the get go.

There will be no seriousity here. Heretics will be tarred and forced to eat Kool-aide pickles.

As to the car sub-tread, I know that I drive my Rx-8 because of my love for you all. I am filled with feelings of joy and love of all humanity as I zip passed you at 90 miles an hour in a car that purrs in sixth gear. Especially you fuckers that like to park your piece of shit 'utilitarian', cheap but reliable crap in the left lane. I have unbounded love and joy for you at those moments most of all.

Imagine a world without lane campers, and love will set you free.

And I chuckle each time you putter past in that RX8 getting V10-like mileage with V-twin like torque.

Oi! I get far better mileage than a Hummer you! And who needs torque when you can take the engine to 11?

No no. You don't understand. It must be better. It goes to 11. See?

Heretic.

I'm sorry, but where in the MMO genre do you think you see something equivalent to this?  Because all I see is WoW, a bunch of games that are just shittier WoW, and a few kooky indie titles that are NEVER going to be mainstream.

There is no sports car.  There's just the WoW economy car, a bunch of economy cars that are identical except they have more rust, and a couple "innovative" fuckers on unicycles.

You see I drive an S-10 and my wife drives a Chevy Venture van. Now lets analyse that.

Wife drives a soccer mom van, enjoys Pogo and played WoW with me for a bit. So if you have a soccer mom van you definetely are into ...um...pogo and Wow.

Me, I drive an S-10...which means I'm a real American PK. I bet everyone that drives S-10's basically own everyone. I love analysing stupid shit then comparing it to MMOs. Its Sweet.

(http://xs315.xs.to/xs315/07196/emot-iiaca.gif) (http://xs.to)

Edit: Argh, transparency! (http://xs315.xs.to/xs315/07196/emot-argh.gif) (http://xs.to)

 why is there this --> :dead_horse: , but nothing to indicate that a thread should be put out of it's misery.  I want an anthropomorphic piece of string (a frayed knot, if you will), which is clearly delusional, getting shot in the head... and I want it applied to this thread, stat.

I thought we'd already closed the issue of why WoW was successful.

• Blizzard is a Brand name too. This attracted.
• Warcraft is a huge brand. This attracted.
• They made a quality playable experience. This retains.
• They tested and tested and tested, and then tested again, their typical way of working.
• They had the largest development budget ever.
• They spent most of it on testing and content creation, having quickly identifying the game mechanic they wanted to use because it's what the majority of players seemed to want. This retains.
• That budget came from a mothership way high in orbit, only occasionally sending down emissaries to dictate some terms.
• Vivendi can reach markets most MMO publishers cannot (or do not, for whatever reason)
• WoW works on anything built in the last six years, roughly. This means if you were playing EQ1, you were invited. This attracted.
  
  

Innovation is not invention. It's doing what others have done in some better way that's more successful. That's WoW in a nutshell.

EvE, SB would be Ferrari with missing wheels and head gasket failure... if only you could fix it.... UO would be classic Corvette with Hugo engine transplant and painted gaudy pink by second owner. Perhaps whatever Stray Bullets Games are working on right now. Yes, not much. Hopefully it will change.

I take it that someone has already posted the "Blizzard to announce Starcraft MMO on May 19th" rumour on CVG (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=163207) and I just missed it?  Or did everyone just see through this shallow fabrication, but stay quiet to laugh if someone fell for it?  Like me?

You know. I think there's something everyone missed on page 1. Maybe.

Next-Gen MMO implies 2 things.

1. It's going to be a console game. Entirely possible. I could see Diablo Online being on the 360. When was "next-gen" ever used for anything associated with PC Gaming? The timing is less than coincidental with the next gen systems out methinks.
2. It's not using the WoW engine. So it probably won't be traditional. And probably won't be Starcraft.
3. Console games aren't that popular in Korea.

As such, I can see the announcement being the more than half-done Starcraft 2.

I don't get the concept of console-based MMOs, since the primary idea behind MMOs is grouping and socializing (otherwise, we'd all be content with CS and Battlenet variations), but, and here I may show my ignorance, typing is not exactly a forte of consoles.

Actually, can we really say that MMOs are about grouping and socializing anymore? Grouping implies people come to these games to group with any and everyone. Socializing implies people come to talk to any and everyone. Neither is so apparent in an age when soloing has become something to advertise and social tools haven't evolved in EQ1 launched the Bazaar.

Voicechat, particularly on the 360, which incorporates video chat. Hell, you can play Uno (XBLA) against four people and have a video conference with them in that window. Xbox Live is a very well integrated service and all games that want to use it have to support a wide array of communication tools (among other things). Sony can announce anything they want. I think they are years away from what Xbox has been doing. Wii is the wildcard. They're as integrated, just in different ways.

Or just buy a USB keyboard. They fall off the back of a truck more expensive than you find them in CompUSA these days.

This is why I said in that other thread that Warhammer Online must have native voice communication no matter what it takes to do it. At which point everyone said native voice is stupid and sucks. As much as it might suck, it doesn't suck as much as trying to use the 360's keyboard and mouse.

That might be a good solution, in time. It would cut the separation bewteen console and pc down drastically in relation to MMOs.

I disagree with Darniaq; if people didn't want the option to socialize with strangers, they'd simply stick to their CS clans and be done with it. Although behavior nowadays suggests that people are more interested in sticking to pre-formed social networks established in the late 90s and early 00 rather than branching out and reforming new ones, that doesn't mean that people want a closed network either.

That MMO social tools haven't evolved past EQ1 suggests that the established social methods of communication have become a standard in the industry, not that they are somehow lessening in importance to players. It goes even farther back to the time of the first MUDs. What made MUDs and later EQ revolutionary was that very notion that you could play with anyone around the world. Games are sometimes solitary ventures, but outside the realm of computers,  90% of the time they are social exercises. That was what was so OMG!1! about MOOs/MUSHs/MUDs; they finally opened the door to social computer games at an unprecedented scale.

If MMOs fall back to consoles, without a relatively easy way of communicating with the stranger, we may as well go back to single player mode, or the anonymous frag fest. Voice chat may be one solution, but I think the average player out there is reticent in opening voice dialogue with a perfect set of strangers. There still needs to be that lead in time over the keyboard. Perhaps in time that social barrier will fade, but I think Blizzard would be treading on dangerous territory to offer a console-only MMO.

Dunno about video chat but the PS2 and PS3 both support voice chat. And don't forget this beauty on the 360:

(http://www.xbox.com/NR/rdonlyres/0BEEA19F-D716-4497-AD89-607A23640169/0/ilmTextinputdevice.jpg)

Dude is that thing real? I see the JPG is hosted at Xbox, but I can't find any link for the device. Someone having fun with CADD, or is it really an Xbox Blackberry?

Actually, we agree, because my point is that people are here for the opportunity to be social with strangers. They just don't exercise it that often. And, as a result of this recognized behavior, games have been changed to be more soloable.

As to the pre-formed social networks, I sorta agree. It seems that more people coming to this genre who do want to exercise their opportunity to be social are first seeking clans/guilds/corps outside of the game. Either they're doing so before they even enter the game the first time, through some meta-game social network (like, say: here), or they hit the game, finish the newbie experience and then travel the official boards for one. The days of PUGs leading to guilds seem be in decline.

But then I wonder was that ever really the most popular method for forming sustainable guilds ("Be an officer in new guild, come to orc lift now!!1")

Yes, it is real. (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=13890)

You mean like this:

http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/09/xbox-360s-qwerty-thumb-keyboard-is-official/
http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/09/xbox-360s-qwerty-thumboard-in-the-wild/

or this?

http://gamerscoreblog.com/team/archive/2007/04/09/543811.aspx

As long as it's removable, I would definitely have one of these.  If, in fact, I had bothered to ever buy a 360.  Which I didn't.  Yet.

It's an attachment to the bottom of the controller. It'd just be weird if they sold a controller with that built on cause if you weren't on MSN it'd just become a pain in your ass. I almost want one.

Other than vendor lock-in I don't understand why they bother with consoles. For typical uses PC gaming rig and Console gaming rig have exact same functionality.

I most definately want one. I love that keyboard thing.

So, err, it's real then?  :-D

It's definitely cool, but I'd just rather go with a full-size wireless keyboard. I suppose it's perfect for console gamers who want to expand their horizons.

Eh? It's perfect for gamers who want to type "lol" instead of picking it from a menu of commonly used colloquialisms. Also, it's great for MSN on the 360.

Unless you just buy a separate keyboard. The reason I said what I did though is that afaik, by and large most console gamers don't have keyboards for their consoles. So them getting anything like this "expands horizons" as it were. But just going by the size the thing is likely to be, any serious typing need is going to drive someone towards buying a full keyboard anyway.

Do a search on how many units a top-selling pc game sells. Then do a search on how many units a top-selling console game sells. Through this google-fu shall you gain understanding.

(or more simply $500<$1500=++market share)

Blizzard homepage has been updated. They are enjoying playing with people to keep them guessing...

http://www.blizzard.com/ (http://www.blizzard.com/)

Can those of us behind censorware get a copy/paste, or the gist?

They are using each day to the May 19th announcement to show the timeline of their games.

(http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/7012/blizcountmf4.jpg)

Tomorrow will be showing starcraft one and so on until we get to the question mark and find out what it is.

I've always thought that blizzard's when it's done mentality allowed for big holes in their release schedule. Looking at that picture, though, it's easy to see that they released a game every year up to WoW. 94 - Warcraft, 95 - Warcraft 2, 96 - Diablo, 97 - Diablo Expansion (I'm not sure they developed that), 98 - Starcraft, 99 - Starcraft Expansion, 2000 - Diablo II, 2001 - Diablo II Expansion, 2002 - Warcraft 3, 2003 - Warcraft 3 Expansion, 2004 - WoW.

My point? Just thought it's interesting.

You're right.  It is.

You have to take into account Blizzard vs Blizzard North and the separate team that was started at Blizzard to do WoW.

And the difference between public-image "when it's done" and actual when it's done.

So, it's not profitable for them to do MMO's then, considering that they'd otherwise be releasing a game yearly, and thus selling millions of boxes each year?

I don't think anyone is saying that.  They will make somewhere around 1,000,000,000 (that's one Billion) on WoW alone this year.  Recurring billing is the holy grail, just ask well, anyone.

Expansions sell too.

I still think their paid transfer system was/is the ultimate money making scam.... "Stuck on a shitty server? Pay us 40 bucks to move your two characters." I wonder how much money they piled in charging 20 bucks a pop for a most simple database manipulation.

It also has the added benefit of making someone who wants to transfer consider their decision carefully and not abuse the system by wrecking havoc on one server and transferring to another without penalty.  But I suppose you could view it as a scam.

Scam and sound business decision can be synonymous in my book.

They are certainly not mutually exclusive.   :evil:

Blizzard can certainly be credited with knowing how to build anticipation for their games.

Well, there's precedent from SoE and EQ1, where they charge you $50 for one character (did they increase that later?). Easy enough to improve on that, and once EQ had shown it to be a worthwhile money-spinner....

In true Blizzard fashion :)

I dare say that perspective is the determinant in what term you'd use!

Have we done the 'internet detective/whois on www.starcraft2.com' thing in this thread yet?

Well - Diablo3 isn't owned by them right?

Negative.  Fact is, SOL had players doing things that were what you would do in another MOG, only not in a Tolkieny world.  It also presumably lacked the customization found in the single-player game, but I'm a bit fuzzy on that part.  The serious Sims players are neither casual nor averse to monthly payments.

I don't know if this has been mentioned at all, but there's also a job posting or two for Mobile related things.

Example - this one is the link for the 'Lead Mobile UI designer'.

http://www.blizzard.com/jobopp/lead-mobile-ui-designer.shtml

Cell phone game? Or PSP/DS portable game?

Either way, how cool would it be if it linked up with this next-gen MMO project of theirs?

To be honest, I think that would be too complicated, and it's gonna be some sort of standalone game.

I agree unless there is some offline component as with EVE and maybe SWG, such that you can use a small client to change factory production or something.  Doesn't sound very StarCrafty, though.  Probably a Rebelstar Tactical Command with Games Workshop sprites.

Diablo for the DS.

It might happen!

More likely it's just some sort of tie-in to WoW, like something you can use to manage the Auction House with or communicate with Guild members and stuff.

It would be about freakin' time somebody did that. It's unfortunate that the only way a big provider would carry this sort of functionality on their deck is if it had Big Huge Brand Recognition.

Could also be Diablo for PSP though, which has gotta be better than Untold Legends by default.

Is it the 19th in Korea yet?  I'm getting impatient.

Nah. It's about 0145 hrs (GMT+9, IIRC), May 18, 2007

You know what, it's possible.

With the popularity of the DS in the US, and the fact that Nintendo has launched the DS in Korea pretty successfully (Maple Story DS!), I can see some sort of a Blizzard franchise coming to the DS.

Let's stop this talk of Diablo on a handheld.  I'm too... something... to go to prison for mass murder.

A new Lost Vikings game would work pretty well on the DS.

According to a thread on the WoW forums the new game will be announces at 10pm PST or 1am EST.

Tonight or tomorrow night? I am confused. Again.

Rock and Roll Racing for the DS? :P

Want to do final bets?

I'll take a risk and say Starcraft MMO.  Maybe with a Starcraft 2 minigame in it :evil:.

Why not Starcraft 2 and Universe of Starcraft ? They could hire half of India to code for them if they wanted :)

I had that written but then I decided to be crass and liken starcraft to a mini game :-).  I actually think there is like a 5% chance of that, it will only be used as a lead in to Universe of Starcraft.

I'm going with Starcraft 2 with a persistent world front-end and match-made competitive environment back end. With microtransactions :)

Starcraft Galaxies.

Only question is if it's a diku retread or if someone has grown balls and is making a massively multiplayer strategy game.

Ultima Worlds Online: Origin

You heard it here first.

4 and a half hours to the announcement.

I fully expect the internet to explode.

I'm with you.

(http://www.yegolev.com/images/ultima_worlds_online.jpg)

My guess: A browser based web 2.0 game geared for kids and bored cubicle workers. WoW lite?

Lost Vikings Online.

(http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/2271/wodzh2.jpg)

I WANT TO BELIEVE

holy shit if they called it sanctuary
i'd
i'd
i'd
*faint*

Especially when they find out that Blizzard is buying Vanguard from SOE for their new game.

splain?

So half an hour still?

I think it's Starcraft as the game is being presented in Korea. Diablo will probably be announced at the Blizzcon.

And since Starcraft is still so popular in Korea the new title will probably move along the same lines without anything groundbreaking. Stick to the formula, port to 3D, maybe a new faction.

I doubt it's a mmorpg, while Diablo may be an hybrid.

StarCraft: Space

Internet memory wouldn't like Galaxies.

Uhm... *nothing happens*

Yea - They are waiting until it's finished.

I think I may explode.

As much as I am hoping for "Universe of Starcraft", I have some info telling me its not. Oh how I hope my info is wrong.

Blizzard announces their next project: Duke Nukem Forever

heres the link for those who are following the blizz event news, which is updated by minutes.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/788/788627p1.html (http://pc.ign.com/articles/788/788627p1.html)

The WoW boards have broken about a half dozen threads already by hitting the post cap.

Mike Morhaime is announcing something...

What eeez it man?!?

StarCraft 2, looks like...

Yes indeed. SC2.

Disappointing.

Go talk in the other thread if you want to talk about SC2:

http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=9861.0

Well, dev-heads of MMOs everywhere sighed a collective breath of relief.

Fuck Blizzard.

Just realized this thread wasn't about Starcraft Online. But rather Diablo for the 360. My bad.

LOL, hope springs eternal.

Well.

Theory for Second RTS game, then MMO seems to be well founded so far.

So... Diablo MMO? DS DIABLO?

FUCKING NEXT GEN CELL PHONE MMO DIABLO SHIT I DONT KNOW GIMME

I love Starcraft. Don't get me wrong.

But.

I'm with schild on this one.

It is no Diablo.

I don't much like RTS games.  I guess I'll just stand in a dark corner for the week everyone here is interested in it.

Yeah, when I first saw this screen on the trailer, I was SOOO thinking MMO.  Looked like a character creation screen.  Korean bois behind me were thinking the same thing.  Since Korean for MMO is...well...MMO.


(http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t51/Xerapis/CharSelect.jpg)

Meh.  I don't care about an RTS.

I'll buy and play the hell out of it, but I won't be happy :wink:.

(http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/1301/donotwantstarwarsfx0.jpg)

Just a week?

Heh.

I'm underwhelmed. Didn't even make any real graphic advances? meh

This is Blizzard we are talking about here.

It's graphically advanced... this one is 1024x768!!  And 3D!

Blizzard has always been a fan of last-year's graphics engines.

--
Alkiera

And with the zillions and zillions of dollars and years of experience, it still won't be as good as TA.

I, a noob, concur with your prognosis. I am hoping that Blizzard will decide that Starcraft will be different to WoW not just in genre but in playstyle - that Starcraft will be what Star Wars Galaxies once was, an open-ended, non-linear, no boundaries, skills-based experience, an 'online world, not just an online game' that takes its core players from the other massive but, in gaming terms, almost unknown MMORPG, Second Life. But of course they won't.

#


Ain't that the fucking truth.  It's like TA just fucks anything over from beyond the grave.

Maybe I was burnt on RTS by the time I got to TA, but I thought it was a distant third to SC, and CC.  In fact, I even liked the "Age of" games more.  Go figure, eh?

Yeah, thats almost exactly my feelings, but that could also be due to the fact that I was getting burnt on RTS and TA didnt really stand out as terribly different to me.  Maybe if I go back and play it now I can get a more unbiased view of it, heh.

Neither of you played it properly.

Heh.

You listen to Jimmy, but you can't HEAR Jimmy.

/patronise.